Watch out. Those claims are often made based on KL-divergence over some arbitrary corpus, not performance in the real world or benchmarks.
I’ve found that I need to go a couple steps past whatever quantizations are good enough in the KL-divergence testing to get good performance in real tasks with long context. So when Q4 is claimed to be lossless I end up with Q5 or Q6 for actual long-context tasks.
It's still heavily AI driven. Maybe less than Bun.
And they've gone in the route of just taking Node native libraries and what not just because they gave up on working out the compatibility. It's a bit of tacked on mess now.
I'm not putting my head under. How do we know this won't cause aneurysms? Damage eyes and ears? Getting a medical device approved takes time because of concerns like this.
It might not actually cause harm or strange effects to people's bodies, but I'd certainly feel better if it was tested and used by doctors in a hospital and not some "spa" since those tend to be poorly regulated and where all kinds of quackery takes place (https://www.aafp.org/afp/afp-community-blog/med-spa-industry...).
The safety of the device itself is a concern, but so is the trustworthiness of the output. Midjourney already has some very questionable history with medical imagery (like this totally legit image of rat testicles published in "Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology" https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/AI_gener...)
>Midjourney already has some very questionable history with medical imagery (like this totally legit image of rat testicles published in "Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology" https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/AI_gener...)
I don't think "someone used their tool to produce a silly result and used it" qualifies as Midjourney having questionable history at all.
From my understanding of the post, the waves that are created are smaller than light waves, and there's no evidence that light waves, sound waves or sub-sonic waves have any aneurysm-causing effects.
(I researched more and found in the video a value)
The waves are 50 nanometres, and this is basically the equivalent of having a full body ultrasound. We've been doing baby ultrasounds for decades with no ill effects, so I can't imagine this being different
Before ultrasound, they used to x-ray pregnant women to see the fetus. At that time, someone might have said "one would hope this has been studied"... unfortunately that practice went on for about 60 years before being stopped in the late 1950s.
Side note: kinda crazy they had medical x-rays in the 1890s. X-Ray imaging was discovered in 1985 and used clinically within 2 years.
But I do agree with your point, these days, I hope we're better about studying the potential dangers of current technologies we use.
We also put lead in paint and gas because why the fuck not? Asbestos pretty much everywhere because it was a miracle material, etc. for decades, and we're still paying the price
> But I do agree with your point, these days, I hope we're better about studying the potential dangers of current technologies we use.
Sorry, but this is just pure "Gell-Mann amnesia effect" vibe to me. I mean, you've just brought up a perfect example yourself! What kind of mental gymnastics does it take to still hope that this time it's not like that?
I don't wanna start the whole "vaccines cause autism" thing and whatnot, and surely you shouldn't avoid ultrasound just because of irrational fear of some yet undiscovered side-effects, but it's really amazing, how people tell fun stories about how common was the narrative about major war being very unlikely in "modern days" (because who would dare to do that with this kind of technology!) right before WW1, and then conclude with firmly believing that these days (after WW2) it sure won't happen, because humans are not that dumb. And my point is, that perhaps it indeed might have been a bit less likely, if people didn't believe that it is so unlikely to keep stepping on the same rake.
> they still refuse to recognize the existence of the nation of Israel. If your counterparty doesn't agree that you have a right to exist, there's no negotiating.
Quick question - does Israel recognize the existence of the state of Palestine?
Yes, Israel is unequivocally committing genocide in Gaza. Genocide is not just "are they killing everybody", but also "are they driving people from their ancestral homelands"?
Israel is constitutionally an ethnostate. If there is an existing population, there is literally no way to establish an ethnostate without genocide - either through killing or displacement.
Muslims do not have full rights, especially those who were murdered and had their land stolen. Do Muslims have the right of return? No. Can any Jew become an Israeli citizen? Yes. There are many other discrepancies.
Again, being Jewish does not give someone special immigration status. It’s completely orthogonal to citizenship. That Israel goes against this principle is what makes it an apartheid colony.
So by this argument, we should just go defeat Israel and give the land back to the Palestinians and no one should have anything negative to say about it right?
Land ownership is determined by your ability to defend it. If you can get a coalition to take down Israel, the land is yours to do whatever you want with it. That is how it works, if you want land, have big guns or big friends.
Nothing I said has any bearing on morality or correctness.
It's also not my logic anymore than the wind stoking a forest fire is my logic. It's just shitty thing that is true. On the global stage, where there is no higher power to appeal to (none of these fools god's exists), your land is only what you can defend with either might or diplomacy. This is a (very shitty, but very real) natural law that exists in the universe we were born into (aliens might decide they want Earth one day). If you run a country, and fail at both of those things, you likely will not being running a country for long.
I mean, here you are agreeing that Israel needs to be stopped by force. An army assembled to go in and kill Israeli soldiers until Palestine is free. See how quick that "morality" flies out the window?
Diplomacy and guns, that's all there is. Morality comes later, if ever at all.
It’s absolutely the moral choice to end Israel. Just like apartheid South Africa. Israel just happens to be much worse and much more belligerent with much more control over the rest of the world. They created a situation where the moral option is their complete destruction.
I'm replying to a comment that says Muslims have equal rights to Jews in Israel and pointing out that is 100% incorrect. That is the world that we live in, the world where Israel is an apartheid state.
Again, "positively discriminates for Jews" is the definition of apartheid. I posted a link with many other apartheid laws. You're not arguing in good faith, so this will be the end of our conversation.
Judaism isn't just a religion; Israel happily accepts non-religious Jews. The goal was to solve a massive refugee problem for a persecuted group with nowhere else to go.
In any case, as a sovereign state, Israel gets to decide on its own immigration policy, regardless of how foreigners feel about it.
Judaism is in fact, just a religion. Zionists are not refugees, they are colonists. They didn’t need to “go” anywhere and regardless of need, never had the right to set foot in Palestine.
> regardless of how foreigners feel about it.
Without the US, Israel will cease to exist. It’s my problem to deal with as a US citizen.
We've banned this account for using HN primarily for ideological/political/religious battle. That's not allowed here, regardless of what you're battling for or against.
Edit: Since your account has been on HN a long time and obviously wasn't created for this purpose, I'll add this bit: If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
We've banned this account for using HN primarily for ideological/political/religious battle. That's not allowed here, regardless of what you're battling for or against.
Oh please! You ban me but not these accounts? Zionists get free reign to spread their propaganda but if anyone dares speak against it, instant ban. Very easy to see who runs this site.
I know that looks like sinister bias when your passions on a topic are intense enough, but this is very much a construct of the beholder, as anyone who takes the time to look at our actual track record would see.
Yep, I remember seeing the headline. I clicked in, read the sub-head and first few sentences, hit the back button, and moved on, having duly noted the passing of one more milestone in Google's long descent. The reasons why it sucks, why they eventually did it and the vague, implausible PR justifications for doing it were all self-derivable from the headline and sub-head.
I doubt I missed anything of significant substance, but didn't want to assert factual knowledge, so I just linked the Wikipedia article (which I also didn't read into). Don't interpret my skipping the rumination step with excusing or dismissing Google's decline. I don't need to rubber-neck every step of a slow-mo, multi-year train wreck to lament that it happened and update my priors regarding Google.
The transcript does seem to overlook post-training steps like Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) (but I'll certainly won't claim that Rich Sutton is unaware of such things; RLVR has a very narrow set of evaluation approaches).
I wonder if this is a precursor to Keen Tech leaning into David Silver's Ineffable Intelligence approach.
This was exactly what I was thinking of. RLVR is the secret sauce behind o3 and its many successors.
Its the secret sauce behind why the current models are so great at coding and soon to be unbeatable at math.
LLMs can pose many questions and if they are easily verifiable, fine tune very heavily. A lot of the world models discussion will inevitable lean into simulations as verification.
I'll admit that I miss having access to the ChatGPT 4.5 "absolutely gigantic model" with enough tuning to make it sane and useful. The RLVR models are superb for actual tasks in those RLVR domains, but that fine tuned view of the world as a verifiable problem to solve makes them feel worse for touchy feely stuff. Even for medical consultation and diagnosis, RLVR model's urge to reach a conclusion often is a liability.
It's RLVR tuned, but not to the ChatGPT level of brain damage, and it's still backed by a fuck off huge pool of model weights - which matters for what you call "touchy feely stuff".
Reading is hard I guess. I'm saying Brexit was not sold as being positive for the economy. Yes the bus probably existed, and as I said, the argument was made that the excess in EU contribution would be spent domestically instead. But improving the economy was not the main argument of the Leave. They always mostly acknowledged that it would be a bit unknown, but whatever happened would be worth it if it meant more sovereignty.
Sure, you could argue that they didn't mean it would be positive for the economy to save that money, but "we will save 350M/week" is what's on the buses and their website. Even if we assume the average voter clicks through here and reads everything point by point, or goes onto the website in the first place rather than by the headline, it is at the very least heavily implied... Otherwise what is the argument?
OK, so I'm right. They are specifically talking about the contribution to the EU budget that would remain at home. They did not talk about the economy as a whole. There is no "heavily implied".
Other replies are hilarious, focusing on "muh! The BUS!!!". I don't care about the bus, I'm focusing on the broader point. "The economy" was never at the forefront of the arguments put forward by Leave.
Here's Nigel Farage, at 6:53 AM the morning after Brexit passed, saying the claim on the bus was a "mistake" and they were never going to send that money to NHS.
“Probably”. Wow. Talk about self delusion and historical revisionism. You can’t bring yourself to admit the obvious reality that the Brexiteers were - to a man - self-serving, mendacious, con artists.
reply