Anecdotal as I haven't had time for a full benchmark, but I have a dense tabular handwritten form that is pretty challenging: LLMs with vision don't do well because the content isn't English words. Textract did poorly because it was just too dense for their model (although I haven't tried recently) Whereas I tried this model and it was a champ: Reasonable Markdown format with accurate content.
faced something similar with Azure, try upscaling the page (2x or more) before sending to the OCR, it increased the accuracy a lot for tiny tables on landscape pages.
They made some good decisions aswell in the recent past, looking at their firewall configuration features (made it zone based).. All in all their eco system is worth it imo and the hardware is actually affordable. On the other hand I had some mikrotik gear in the past which was also really good, the user interface is just not as shiny ;-)
Over time, I've gotten a feel for what kind of content is AI-generated (e.g., images, text, and especially code...), and this text screams "AI" from top to bottom. I think badger responded very professionally; I'd be interested to see Linus Torvalds' reaction in such a situation :D
It’s interesting that you say that because besides the other perspectives on this type of matter, something I have come across is accusations of AI text that at the very least were not at all clearly AI, but also seemed like the accusation was simply a coping mechanism to deflect/evade having to accept or face new informatio/reality that was counter to one’s mental model or framework.
I think of that recent situation where video showed two black bags supposedly being thrown out of a White House window. I don’t really care enough to find out whether or not that video was real, but I did find it interesting that Trump immediately dismissed it as AI after immediately glancing at it. Regardless of whether it was real or not, it seems to me that his immediate “that’s AI” response was just a rather new form of lie, a type of blame shifting to AI.
I would argue that as stupid and meaningless as that kind of example is, a better response would have been something like “we will look into it” and then moving on. But it also feels like blaming AI for innocuous things preconditioned the public to deny and gaslight the public on other, more important things, e.g., for example claiming that Israel raining down bombs on civilian people in Gaza and mass murdering probably hundreds of thousands of innocent people in what looks like the start to the Terminator wars, is merely a figment of your imagination because you will be told that AI was used and AI will be scrubbed off that information so you also will never be told about it. It’s memory holed in the TelescreenAI.
These types of developments don’t exactly fill me with optimism. Remember how in 1984 the war never ended, always changed, while at the same time both always existed and also did not actually exist? It feels like we are heading in that direction, the gaslighting form here on out, especially in all the forms of overt and clandestine war will be so off the charts that it will likely cause unpredictable mass “hysterias” and various undulations in societies.
Most people have no idea just how much media is used to train humans like an AI would be trained or controlled, now throw in ever more believable AI generated audio, visual, and not even to mention the text slop.
I think you're veering too far into politics on what was originally not a very political OP/thread, but I'll indulge you a tiny bit and also try to bring the thread back to the original theme.
You said a lot of words that I basically boil down to a thesis of, the value of "truth" is being diluted in real-time across our society (with flood-the-zone kinds of strategies), and there are powerful vested interested who benefit from such a dilution. When I say powerful interests, I don't meant to imply Illuminati and Freemasons and massive conspiracies -- Trump is just some angry senile fool with a nuclear football, who as you said has learned to reflexively use "AI" as the new "fake news" retort to information he doesn't like / wishes weren't true. But corporations also benefit.
Google benefited tremendously from inserting itself into everyone's search habits, and squeezed some (a lot of) ad money out of being your gatekeeper to information. The new crop of AI companies (and Google and Meta and the old generation too) want to do the same thing again, but this time there's a twist -- whereas before the search+ads business could spam you with low-quality results (in proto-form, starting as the popup ads of yesteryear), but it didn't necessarily directly try to attack your view of "truth". In the future, you may search for a product you want to buy, and instead of serving you ads related to that product, you may be served disinformation to sway your view of what is "true".
And sure negative advertising always existed (one company bad-mouthing another competitor's products), but those things took time and effort/resources, and also once upon a time we had such things as truth-in-advertising laws and libel laws but those concepts seem quaint and unlikely to be enforced/supported by this administration in the US. What AI enables is "zero marginal cost" scaling of disinformation and reality distortion, and in a world where "truth" erodes, instead of there being a market incentive for someone to profit off of being more truth-y than other market participants, on the contrary I would except that the oligopolistic world we live in would conclude that devaluaing truth is more profitable for all parties (a sort of implicit collusion or cartel-like effect, with companies controlling the flow of truth, like OPEC controlling their flow of oil).
Why would you think it matters what you think? Keep your pretentious, supremacist narcissism to yourself and tell those you abuse what to do, because that is not going to matter here.
I think they just read my first sentence and decided to take offense immediately. Shrug.
All I meant was, I didn't want to go down a path of talking about Trump... that's a very very dead horse to beat. I thought there were interesting elements to this person's ideas that were worth further discussion, that could be divorced/split-off from the Trump lightning rod, so I tried to do that. I generally thought I agreed with their original ideas, and wanted to build on them or respond to them, without getting sucked into wasting breath on Trump (nobody benefits, regardless if you have left or right leaning views).
I'm sure I could fix some gaps in the way I explained myself, but oh well, just another day on the internet.
Agree. Also, use good thermal paste. 100 °C is not safe or sustainable long term. Unfortunately, I think the manufacturer's specifications regarding the maximum temperature are misleading. With proper cooling, however, you'll be well within that limit.
Data science where you need to keep ~50GB of data in RAM and do intensive things with it (e.g. loop over it repeatedly with numba). You can't get use out of more than 4 cores because memory bandwidth is the only limitation. The data is too big for AMD's cache to be a factor.
Threadripper is built for this. But I am talking about the consumer options if you are on a budget. Intel has significantly more memory bandwidth than AMD in the consumer end. I don't have the numbers on hand, but someone at /r/localllama did a comparison a while ago.
There's many red herrings in that table (namely: old DDR4 consumer platforms, server platforms, low bandwidth DDR5 sticks), but surfacing the two relevant numbers (DDR5-6400 consumer heads-up comparison):
