But this isn't a story, literature, or a fancy piece of art; it's merely a technical blog post that discloses a security vulnerability. Here, the writing serves only as a vehicle to convey a message. Once you've received it, its purpose has been fulfilled. I would agree with you if the writing were an important part of the message, but here it is not. Not everybody can write well, and this guy clearly had something to tell, and that is what matters.
What "other platforms" are you talking about? Just an Android app would suffice. It's not a huge deal for a company worth trillions, especially if the features are already there and they're just blocking non-Apple products. If they deliberately do that, it makes you think they don't really care about their customers and are more interested in locking people into their ecosystem.
You can absolutely sync your vault without a paid subscription. Simply save it within your OneDrive or Google Drive folder. Alternatively, you could use Syncthing if you prefer a self-hosted solution.
However, these rights should be guaranteed to a company operating in the USA and strictly adhering to US law. Of course, if the law is (arbitrarily) changed to make this illegal due to the Chinese government's stake, then it could be forced to shut down, but that would be inconsistent with the constitution.
This approach is valuable because it abstracts away certain complexities for the user, allowing them to focus on the code itself. I found it especially beneficial for users who are not willing to learn functional languages or parallelize code in imperative languages. HPC specialists might not be the current target audience, and code generation can always be improved over time, and I trust based on the dev comments that it will be.
Thank you for your work. I have been having trouble achieving the desired level of formality in the generated text. When I ask for slightly formal content, the result tends to be too formal. However, when I ask the model to reduce the formality or use a semi-formal tone, the text becomes too informal. This will allow me to exercise more control over the style of the model's output and stop constantly battling with it.
This comment does nothing more than repeat the information provided in the title and in a very verbose style. I don't understand the tendency for GPT generated comments that is lately taking over HN and Twitter threads. They are insipid, add absolutely nothing of value to the discussion, and are generally a waste of time to read.
It's about minimising friction in our tasks and reducing any unnecessary obstacles. Even seemingly minor actions that only take a few seconds can build up over time and generate a sense of frustration, especially when they become frequent.
Personally, I have found that dealing with this kind of friction can erode my overall productivity, as I unconsciously shy away from these tedious tasks that involve manual repetition, no matter how small. That's why many of us choose to invest a little time in coming up with these small automations that free us from the clutches of monotonous and repetitive tasks, allowing us to focus on the core of our work.
Useless for what? Are you comparing the base model with chat-tuned models?
Chat-tuned derivatives of LLaMa 2 are already appearing. Given that the base LLaMa 2 model is more efficient than LLaMa 1, it is reasonable to expect that these more refined chat-tuned versions of the chat-tuned versions will outperform the ones you mention.
"Compared to GPT2 it’s on par"
Any benchmarks or evidence tu support this claim? IF you try to find them, official benchmarks will tell you that this is not true. Even the smallest LLaMa model (7B) is far ahead of GPT2, like an order of magnitude better in perplexity.