I'm not convinced you need React/Next.js even in those cases. Web components work and LLMs are so capable of using them that I find there is increasingly little utility in big frameworks.

Any web components solution is probably going to be as big as React

Difference is in the eventing model and complexity of state management in React's hooks based model vs vanilla's. WC is aligned with how JS callbacks naturally work. React is the only framework that points the callback to the component function.

These days you can write in say React or SolidJs or JSX I guess to say, and have it transformed into HTML only with no JavaScript.

You get the best of both worlds, better language than XML/HTML and yah, you can deliver only HTML since the consumer typically doesn't need all that JavaScript, spa stuff. The Island Architecture.

Feels like a good in-between. Good DX for me, great UX and mostly HTML with some JavaScript sprinkled and fallback for users.

No idea why this idea is being downvoted, because it is totally correct, even more so in the LLM-coding era.

If you play the game correctly it can be a good deal. The ~1 USD per TB per month of glacier deep archive is hard to compete with if you (probably) don’t need to read the data back.

What use is data that is never read unless it is for redundancy, disaster recovery, legal, or audit purposes, etc.

Yes you can make the argument for that specific use case.

For everyday use case, using s3 as your primary storage is costly and is not at all ideal.

I agree, but that's cherry-picking what is perhaps the only cost-effective service in all of AWS.

Even without that particularly special case, high-energy physics collaborations have long since broken the idea of authors. There are now many collaborations with hundreds of authors publishing regularly and quite a few that are into the thousands.

I like it, represents science's general 'standing on the shoulders of our precedents' far more realistic then the 'genius solo' PR mythos.

Where is the balance between this and citations? Authors implies said person provided additions to get the work done.

With projects like the LHC, there really are thousands of people involved in "getting the work done."

Can you cite the paper with that?

After parsing that article to get the paper link, that is insane. I am not in the field, but find it curious that each every person of that list of authors had direct significant contribution. Not my field though so just seems odd.

The LHC is a massive experiment. Just to cite Wikipedia:

> The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is the world's largest and highest-energy particle accelerator. It was built by the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) between 1998 and 2008, in collaboration with over 10,000 scientists, and hundreds of universities and laboratories across more than 100 countries. It lies in a tunnel 27 kilometres (17 mi) in circumference and as deep as 175 metres (574 ft) beneath the France–Switzerland border near Geneva.

They give credit to everyone who built the instrument, wrote the software pipelines to analyze the data, etc. That's thousands of people. That's how large experimental projects work.

I think the premise of this article is wrong. Scientific Linux was important once upon a time but these days with userspace containers there is no need for the same level of homogeneity. In practice everyone is using Apptainer on machines that don’t have a singular purpose.

Userspace containers don’t provide the level of reproducibility that is required for a scientific experiment, though.

That needs a citation. I’m not aware of anyone doing anything more than containers. For older experiments VMs have been used but that’s a legacy thing that predates containerisation and isn’t driven by reproducibility.

Thats literally what the author descirbes. Its about the cost of infra and making choices, not to go back

We don’t have access to the real reasoning text for most closed models these days, mostly due to distillation threats

Like a lot of things in the UK, the problem isn't the harshness of the law, it's the lack of prosecution. It doesn't matter what the punishment is when criminals know that the crime is extremely unlikely to be investigated or make it to trial.

> it's the lack of prosecution.

The UK allows private prosecution, if it was a real problem the insurance companies would be using it, instead of attempting to make the state pay for it.

You still need to be able to realise something is fraudulent and pursuing prosecution has a significant cost to the insurer that is likely to be a net-loss financially. Not to mention the reputational risk of the public believing you prosecuted someone wrongly.

Are they still? I thought this project was no longer really active.

I'm not actually sure about this specific project, but people are still hard at work making CPython faster. Many of them the same people as where in this project.

You also want them to be the person with the most ideal weight: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coxswain_(rowing)

The "our story" menu bar item has it in the drop down.

I assume OP interpreted it as encryption that hides the prompts from OpenAI rather than OpenAI hiding information from users.

I'd be all for homomorphic encryption on inference, but as you say, this is probably mostly to prevent end users from observing intermediate results.

Homomorphic encryption for LLMs is extremely expensive and nowhere near computationally possible for the scale of current LLMs.

When I say things like that, I'm talking about a hypothetical version that would be computationally possible. I'm not talking about today's homomorphic encryption.

ooooooof yeah totally misinterpreted it lmao

Apple's Private Cloud Compute is E2EE between the client and the attested node. Not sure if anyone else is legitimately doing that -- Apple has definitely gone the furthest in terms of verifiably ensuring that requests and responses are not misusable by Apple.

Given what we know about the company, I find it crazy anyone would misinterpret along those lines lol.

I can only say I am a little too optimistic about the technology world in general. Or at least would love to see some good news once in a while given the state of the world.

to be fair, the title is very misleading, it took me a minute to understand what they meant