Because a poorly implemented chatbot using someone else's LLM API is comparable to what you can accomplish with 10^n rounds of inference in a clever way. Computers are useless without error correction, LLMs may be as well. That's not to say that LLMs will form their own goals, but that people in control of them will be welding dangerously capable agents.
Hmm, in theory what if I used a dedicated GPU just for the VM that was disabled on the host. I don't know the space of these exploits well enough to know if there's an obvious attack that still leaves the host open to.
Charging a small amount is more optimal since it mitigates API spam without having to set a low rate limit. It also ties your users to a financial id, which is (probably) harder to get in bulk for nefarious purposes than just requiring a phone number to sign up.
It seems your first attempt to post this was flagged because the domain name sounds like it'll act like a redirect, and the page itself only had an image with no elaboration and just the link to github.
It's always worth examining the other perspective, it makes for actual discussion. If I want to see everyone in agreeance with no room for these opinions I'll use reddit.
Looking through the source where the tests are conducted,
for (double x = 1; x < 1000000000; x += 0.5) {
counter++;
int64_t tmp;
if (to_int64_simple(x, &tmp)) {
sum += tmp;
}
}
The fractional part is always mostly 0.5, or 0.10000... While that shouldn't really affect things, I think a proper test would sample randomly, though this runs into the problem of the random number generator itself influencing the time spent, so I can see the appeal for this method. Perhaps generating a random float array with N elements and calculating the results for x + arr[x%N] would accomplish this.
I've also found that in emails there's a surprisingly large number of people that think "yes" is a valid response to: "Should I do A or B"? They interpret the or like an interpreter and short circuit at A, rather than recognizing that this is asking which should be done.
I think that's an interesting perspective, you're right that this is a post praising moderation (a form of censorship.) I don't find it dystopian/thoughtless however, because the outcome of this moderation philosophy is visibly better than the vast majority of other forums I've partaken in. The forums that were better were small, and did not scale as well as HN because moderation is very hard to get right. The better part of HN also isn't seeing more of what I agree with, but seeing different perspectives presented in a way that yield actual discussion.
I found this article[1] answered allot of the questions I was left with after reading the linked article.
> “What we normally do is put a satellite transmitter on any animal that we deploy instruments on. In this case, we didn’t, because we expected this (camera) just to be gone at sea for a couple of days,” said Lidgard in an interview Friday.
> “With hindsight, probably not a good idea,” he added with a laugh.
> The idea, he said, was to deploy the camera four or five times, each time removing it from the seal to get the data after a few days and reattaching it to continue the research.
> In this case, Lidgard said he thinks the seal was starting to go through the moulting process and was foraging for food when the camera fell from its back.
When I do competitive programming, I celebrate the "one and done" moments where my first compile and test against the samples works, and then the submission too yields Answer Correct. Even for problems I'd consider hard I can semi reliably get this. But I find it much rarer for this to happen in my work, probably because I have to work with unfamiliar, often poorly (if that) documented code. But even with well written code, I don't have the same level of internal context juggling when making changes as I do with freshly written contest code, which I think is the key difference.
> 23. c4: "White tries to get his pawns moving. I am still thinking that I have to move my bishop, but that is too slow. I think white should have moved his king back to c3 to prevent my pawn from becoming a passer."
The idea behind moving the pawn was because black playing c4 would have instantly lost both pawns since the bishop has nowhere safe to go where it still defends c2 (Bh7 leading to g6 losing the piece.) I don't think the king could have made it to the c file in time to stop that.
> 34... Rxg4: "Now I can't stop him from advancing his pawn."
Is this meant to be speaking from whites perspective (since black just got the unopposed h file pawn.)
Interestingly only 10. O-O links with a move, I think it would be really helpful if they all linked to moves. Also i'm really excited for this kind of analysis! It would be really cool if request a computer analysis eventually generated such analyses trying to figure out each sides ideas.