I suppose many products were initially invented to get value or of an underutilized by-product, but as soon as there's a market and people want to buy it, the byproduct is no longer waste.
This made me wonder - do any cloud compute systems have an option to time jobs or use physical resources geographically based on surplus power availability to minimise emissions?
I reckon it might incidentally happen if optimising for cost of power depending how correlated that is to carbon intensivity of power generation, which admittedly I haven't thought through.
> Modern sailing vessels always sail into the wind, because they're always going faster than the wind blows.
Maybe state of the art hydrofoiling boats, cats and some quite large monohulls, but maybe that's what you meant by modern. Most sailboats built today have a pretty low top speed (due to hull speed limitations) relative to wind speed - monohulls often max out around 5-6 kts aren't going to be faster than the wind pretty much ever
You don't tend to hear about it and not that there isn't still progress to be made, but there has been tonnes of progress on fisheries interactions with protected bycatch species. For ex the infamous dolphin problem in the eastern tropical Pacific purse seine tuna fishery is down 99.8% from its peak to the point populations are recovering, despite the fishery intentionally setting on dolphin schools to catch > 150,000 t of yellowfin tuna per year.
Pelagic gillnets are probably the gear that still have the most issues with dolphin bycatch, and acoustic pingers that play a loud ultrasonic tone when they detect an echolocation click are already used to reduce interactions in some fisheries.
We had one on a yacht I crewed that did ecotour sorta sails. When we'd catch a small tuna, after the trips I'd butterfly it and George Foreman it. No added oil just right on the Teflon cooking surface and texture and taste would come out sorta like fried chicken. It was great
I'm not sure it's that unique of a situation though, most prey organisms have some antipredator adaptations but rarely are they foolproof, just like rarely are predatory adaptations like mimicry/camouflage/crypsis absolutely foolproof.
Oh yeah, 'charging up' your wetsuit is great. The replacement is fairly limited with a good suit especially if you have booties and a hood, but who cares, people pay a lot of money for skin care products with urea in them.
I bet all of these researchers involved had a long list of candidates they'd like to test and have a very good idea what the lowest hanging fruit are, sometimes for more interesting reasons than 'it was used successfully as an inhibitor for X and hasn't been tried yet in this context' — not that that isn't a perfectly good reason. I don't think ideas are the limiting factor. The reason attention was paid to this particular candidate is because google put money down.
I'm sure the scientists involved had a wish list of dozens of drug candidates to repurpose to test based on various hypotheses. Ideas are cheap, time is not.
In this case they actually tested a drug probably because Google is paying for them to test whatever the AI came up with.
That's incredible. Looks like they leased a building to the hostelers and it was shut down because it violated sanctions, but amazing that the $42,000 a month lease is worth it to dabble in for NK. Then again they were subletting parking spots and rooms previously, perhaps if the order is to milk any property or opportunity overseas it adds up.
'could' is doing a whole lot of work in that sentence, I'm being charitable. Reality is LLMs are being crammed in places where it isn't very sensible under thin justifications, just like the last few big ideas were (c.f. blockchain)
> require a restart or get stuck on some uninterruptible process and requires forcing killing it at least once a day.
Yes, I think I've been trained by crashes to subconsciously limit interactions with the RStudio GUI while something is running, e.g resizing a window seems to be surefire way to cause a crash.
> Writing is complex, LLMs once had subhuman performance,
And now they can easily replace mediocre human performance, and since they are tuned to provide answers that appeal to humans that is especially true for these subjective value use cases. Chip design doesn't seem very similar. Seems like a case where specifically trained tools would be of assistance. For some things, as much as generalist LLMs have surprised at skill in specific tasks, it is very hard to see how training on a broad corpus of text could outperform specific tools — for first paragraph do you really think it is not dubious to think a model trained on text would outperform Stockfish at chess?
One camp is a high specificity camp, the other is a high sensitivity camp. You definitely know what camp you are in if you are only making the argument you can detect true cases of LLM use without many false positives- I've already admitted less blatant LLM use goes undetected so I am not arguing for high sensitivity.
And we have plenty of evidence of hallmarks of LLM use, we can even replicate the LLM resume generation process if we wanted. There is plenty of useful "training data" available even if you don't have a validated set of resumes submitted for this type of role at this type of company from this demographic of applicants.
Basically what you are trying to argue is that you can't have confidence that the animals you see people walking down the street on leashes are dogs unless you ask the owners whether they are dogs are not... AND that it doesn't matter that dogs are highly distinct from other domestic pets AND that we've seen many verified dogs before in other contexts, AND have even bred different varieties of dogs on our own.
I highly doubt that you maintain that standard for inductive inference across the board in your own practice. Life would be very difficult if you refused to make inferences about novel things (with any confidence) based on generalised patterns derived from other, similar cases.
The makeup is a great analogu. I can bet with 99.9% that when I say a woman is wearing makeup that I'm correct (or it is tattoed on or similar). When it's obvious, it's obvious. However I don't detect makeup on women quite often.
The economists is not not as good of an analogy, almost converse of the makeup example as that is a high rate of false positives.