Related story, while applying a firmware update to my Kawai CA49 piano, I bricked it due to flashing the wrong file (The process was broken, and I got desperate and tried something stupid, which bricked the piano). Claude walked me through looking for signs of life, and since OTA from the phone app wasn't working for me, it downloaded the Kawai Android APK, decompiled the Java, figured out the hardcoded key used for encrypting the firmware update. Extracted the piano firmware update, decrypted it, and then wrote a flashing script to program the piano from my laptop via bluetooth. My piano was back to working within an hour.
If you have independent copies of the network learning gradients, then you’re effectively making the batch size smaller— unless you’re doing an all collect and making them sync, in which case there’s a lot of overhead
When you take a batch and calculate gradients, you’re effectively calculating a direction the weights should move in, and then taking a step in that direction. You can do more steps at once by doing what you say, but they might not all be exactly in the right direction, so overall efficiency is hard to compare
I am not an expert, but if I understand correctly I think this is the answer.
I want to also mention that the previous model was 3.7. 3.7 to 4 is not an entire increment, it’s theoretically the same as 3 -> 3.3, which is actually modest compared to the capability jump I’ve observed. I do think Anthropic wants more frequent, continuous releases, and using a numeric version number rather than a software version number is their intent. Gradual releases give society more time to react.
He's not saying that all non fiction is bad, just that the incentives are misaligned, and to be fair at least in my experience, there are a lot of popular non-fiction books where each chapter is repetitive, and I feel the whole thing could have been written in 2-3 chapters, if publishing a 30-page nonfiction book wasn't taboo
I assume it’s easier to find an engineer who went to engineering school to learn how to build airplanes that are safe than it is to find an MBA who went to business school to learn how to build planes that are safe. (It’s not about the knowledge but about the root desire)
Similarly, I assume it’s harder to find an engineer who went into the field purely for money.
I do think on average engineers will prioritize safety (since they likely understand failure modes and production and long tail statistics better. We literally have to take engineering ethics classes), at the cost of doing a worse job at running the business. But when the business requires this level of safety, that IS doing a good job.
I think planes can still fly with the rudder loose? If the bolt falls out and it loses control, wind will push it into the neutral position and then flying will still be possible with other control surfaces? But I guess if the pilots don't know and it happens suddenly at a critical moment or if the bolt causes the rudder to get jammed, then that would be really bad. But I assume it falling out would result in the rudder loosely returning to neutral...
If we have intelligent AI that can automate programming, then making really good robots will not be a problem. While not trivial, actuators and power systems are not the reason why we don’t have robots that can do all manual labor for us. Software is the reason, and the same kind of software that’s learning to code (machine learning) can also be adapted to washing dishes, folding clothing, doing craft labor or previously human manufacturing jobs.
Accelerating programming and information jobs also means accelerating the creation of robots that can do these trade jobs
Recommend passing the speech-to-text narration through a round of GPT4 API to correct for any transcription errors (use some prompt giving context that it's speech to text)
Suggests there's other variables involved, like time of day taken, other supplements taken simultaneously, metabolic processes, diet, and maybe even the placebo effect.
Well, assuming they likely have some PFAS already in their system, you might just be giving them blood with the same concentration of PFAS that they already have.
They need to be dimensioned and finished quite accurately. Most plywood has a slight bend to it. At the speeds and accelerations needed to be competitive, any imperfection would mean your car will fly off the track or hit a wall.
When you change a product page, you lose all reviews, but you get a "New Product" link on the old page to link to the new one, giving you exposure.
Amazon can make the "New Product" show up for queries for the older one, but without the stellar reviews. This way modified products still get good exposure and no one will accidentally buy the old one. But there aren't reviews on the same page for a different product. The system can still be gamed similarly, but at least you can't get reviews for the wrong product on the same page.
At the end of the day, you're still responsible for reading the email before you send it. I don't think it matters how the email was written. I think the final content matters more. There's many ways to prompt an AI, both carelessly and with extreme attention to detail.
For example, I typed this message. But I'm sure with careful massaging, I could get an AI to write the same thing, word-for-word. The laziness you're referring to probably happens even if the manager is typing the email out themselves.
Theoretically, one could compile whisper.cpp to run in the browser using emscripten, maybe made faster with webgl...
I think this would be quite a heavy page load time for a website, but if the model file gets cached, and the user has a decent CPU/GPU, it... could work?
Is it extra protein, if they lived only off the rice in the bag? Presumably all the protein inside of them came from rice that would have otherwise been there.
I guess it helps digest and synthesize some of the proteins for you.
I think there's a lot of hate in the comments, and while I agree (stop hijacking my scrollbar), I'd like to inject some constructive positivity:
1. They put the disclaimer right in their motto. Get smooth or die trying. They're willing to accept failure in pursuit of peak smoothness.
2. Hate it as much as you want, ever since the awful idea was born, we haven't been able to prevent websites from doing this. Some implementations are better than others, and having standardization will help improve the state of the web for all websites that make this... terrible... decision. Their implementation happens to be quite nice.
3. Even if there's issues with the implementation, having a standard library means that when updates get applied, they apply to all websites that use them.