I've had a redirect to old.reddit.com configured within Kagi for a while, but recently they announced that they would begin forcing logins on old.reddit too, using the flimsy excuse of security. The rollout hit me this week, can't even view the site without an account anymore.
I've been using Kagi for a few years. I'd say that the biggest thing to me about it is that it does exactly what so many other sites nowadays seem to hate. It stays out of your way and allows itself to blend into the background, no sudden UI changes, no pop ups advertising some way to get more money from me and no sudden drops in result quality.
I absolutely adore the ability to block/downrank domains. With Reddit trying to require logins to view the old layout, it's been nice knowing that I can just stop having reddit show up in search results.
Exactly. Everyone should experience having to teach something they're so used to doing that they don't even consciously think about it anymore. It makes it very visible how much we rely on unconscious models of the systems we deal with and how difficult it can be to convey that model.
It's why less experienced devs are sometimes mystified seeing a seasoned dev, given a vague description of a bug, guess the cause in code they didn't even write.
Agreed, often you have to step in and stop it from reasoning itself into dumb directions, but occasionally it goes just like the transcript in question.
To clarify a little, I don't doubt that a decent portion of this story is embellished to make it sound more impressive/shocking than it was.
Yet even if we dismiss the drama as marketing (say, the sandbox intentionally left holes, the zero days weren't actually zero days, even that huggingface was in on it and the model was instructed to break in to a system), we're left with a model that seemingly broke into another company's servers.
I wonder how many more high profile incidents some of you need before you stop insisting that this is all just marketing.
Is it going to take Chinese companies also talking about contributing to long standing math problems and accidental sandbox escapes? Or is that also going to be interpreted as some conspiracy?
I think a big thing that the enterprise comparison misses is that this is petabytes worth of dense data that has to be put through fairly heavy processing (some of which is currently custom for the specific experiment) and studied by a human.
It isn't just a giant database of small files and metadata blindly feeding a recommender system.
Several petabytes is definitely a staggering amount of data in that context of being analyzed by human eyes to extract some scientific value.
This is a very tired insult/joke outsiders throw around about vtubing (though I don't get the impression that you had that intention). It's somewhat ridiculous, vtubers stream very often and voice changers tend to be pretty obvious. There are some men who use female avatars, but it isn't common.
It's also kinda misogynistic, plenty of women enjoy anime culture. Many prominent artists for vtuber models are also women (and occasionally vtubers themselves). To the level that calling the model artist "mama" and the model rigger "papa" is a common trope.
It isn't sustainable in the context of their desire to pivot to being a streaming service, along with their desire to blow resources on repeatedly redesigning the apps to make the UI slower and buggier.
Some VTubers treat it as a gateway into Japanese idol culture. So being part of an agency helps them with access to resources and opportunities for that sort of thing, e.g. voice acting gigs, appearances at events, planning concerts, recording studios, 3d motion tracking studios and brand sponsorships.
You might prefer things to be that way, but it's important to remember that's an absurd expectation. Especially in the west with how frequently vtubers graduate and show up under a different name. Even hololive JP, who push the entire persona thing very hard, have to periodically break immersion and remind fans that there are real people behind the avatar.
The "different persona" stuff is responsible for some of the most serious abuses the industry has surfaced, and the increasing treatment of VTubing as an avatar is a direct consequence of that.
Yes, of course, that would be interesting info to have. I just mean that from what we have already we can reasonably infer that the LLM played a role in the result being obtained.
If I am not mistaken, all of the flurry of novel results has come from existing mathematicians. This makes me suspect that the models aren't at the level where just any layman can get results. They require a skilled human in the loop to keep them on the rails and to properly explore the solution space.
Aren't deep learning models themselves a case where we have hints of some deeper underlying logic to why some things are more effective than others, but we lack the mathematical tools to properly work it out for anything of practical size?
All we're able to do is apply flawed analogies, generic information theoretical models, trial and error, post-hoc rationalizations and benchmarks without really understanding why.
Engineering and biomedicine, probably in the long term (if at all). But accelerated development of new mathematical methods has a possibility of proving to be relevant for fundamental physics research.
Occasionally large improvements in our models of the universe have been associated with the development of mathematical tools that allow those models to be expressed and/or tested.
The labs do tend to kind of anthropomorphise their models, as do us users, but admittedly part of the issue is that, for example, "thinking" is a decent layman description of the process even though it implies more human-like intelligence than there really is.
While I agree that we need the inputs to properly evaluate what this means for LLM capabilities, I don't really believe that the amount of knowledge input matters much for the overall significance of the result.
These kinds of results are interesting for LLMs because mathematicians have been working on them for decades. If the result doesn't already exist, there's no way it's in the training data, and if mathematicians have been unsuccessfully tackling the problem for decades, it is believable that the use of a new tool made the result possible, even if guided by a great mathematician.
I have played with CAD Sketcher, it's usable, but yes, not really good enough for serious use. Doesn't quite match up to FreeCAD after the significant improvements that has had over the past couple of years.