This is such a Claude written post. Obvious tells everywhere, but the most annoying is how it uses private terms without defining them. What the fuck is "Spanner"? It refers to it multiple times. Of course we know the reason is that some dickhead at Ant told their Claude to write a blog post, and Claude being Claude has very poor/non-existent theory-of-mind for people and generates this trash.
https://cloud.google.com/spanner, though technically any database would work if you know how to scale them. Spanner just has a few nice properties for our scale.
Good call about us not defining it, I can fix that! And this blog post was 100% human-written.
What I do find interesting is GT3 cars have both ABS and traction control these days and they have great racing. I believe prototypes have TC but no ABS. I realize the mix of talent is much different, especially in GT3 where there are Pro/AM teams and stuff like that, but I'm not sure TC makes that big of a difference on the racing. I don't think ABS should ever be allowed in open wheel as it inspires too much risk taking in overtakes. The whole reason NA F1 revved so high was partially to help keep the power band reasonable exiting slow corners.
As you say, the driver skill is very different between F1 and GT3. If traction control was allowed in F1, the teams would not settle for something like in GT3, it would become an arms race. In the end we might end up with racing determined by who has the best control algorightms, and not who has the best dirver/chassis.
I mean sure if you want the best racing you want a complete spec series. The point being that you'd make the cars as close as possible in times so they they're all bunched together. Adding TCS and ABS would then compress the delta that driver skill creates so you'd compress the field further. Then fully automatic gearboxes and auto-steer would make it even closer.
But F1 is not just about good racing. One of its USP is that it has the world's best drivers. I think that's mostly but not entirely true due to the presence of pay drivers like Stroll.
Isn’t the idea that they’re limiting the amount of gpu time normal users get to spend on the “thinking” portion of their query?
I think that’s the claim in the post, that even though no one can see the true chain of thought, that even the “thinking” text that does get exposed to the user is shorter given the same prompts over time. Not saying it’s true but I think that’s the claim. I’ve personally never noticed the alleged “nerfing” with my enterprise use at work or my subscription use at home which is only during off hours.
Previous generation of this was a monstrosity based on a custom SPARC with ARM front end grafted on top, supporting the version of SPARC extensions they created backported to ARM as a new extension.
So there's a good chance that it's still an optimized half-SPARC inside.
I feel like they failed upwards into the right strategy. I doubt it was deliberate and not because of the failure of their foundation models to decent.
reply