The article tries to play sleight of hand with the specific instance that they cite but it seems that the loss of water is alleged to be caused by sediment from construction rather than water use.
It's not great that it happened and it is something local government should take action on, but it is also something that could have been caused by any form of industrial construction. I suspect there are already laws in place that cover this. If they are not being enforced that's another issue entirely.
Data center construction exposing weaknesses in local infrastructure is a double-edged sword; you wanna know if things need upgrading but you don't wanna be negatively affected by it.
Maybe there should be some clause in these contracts that mandate tech companies foot the bill for local infrastructure improvements.
That may be part of the issue. Perhaps LLMs are just causing people to reveal how much they consider a maintainer as providing a service for them. Maintainers don't work for you, they let you benefit from the service they perform.
That workload of maintaining a fork doesn't come from nowhere, it's just a workload someone else would have to do before the fork occured.
I think it's more likely that libraries will give way to specified interfaces. Good libraries that provide clean interfaces with a small surface area will be much less affected by thos compared to frameworks that like to be a part of everything you do.
The JavaScript ecosystem is a good demonstration of a platform that is encumbered with layers that can only ever perform the abilities provivded by the underlying platform while adding additional interfaces that, while easier for some to use, frequently provide a lot of functionality a program might not need.
Adding features as a superset of a specification allows compatibility between users of a base specification, failure to interoperate would require violating the base spec, and then they are just making a different thing.
Bugs are still bugs, whether a human or AI made them, or fixed them. Let's just address those as we find them.
I could certainly see that direction earlier in some communities, but reaching agreement on specs seems like the opposite of where distributed low cost code writing is headed.. I.e. I like 20% of your OSS library and have one different opinion so I pull part of it in directly, change something, and ask an LLM to freshen it where that should mean what the LLM thinks I usually mean which is kind of like what some other people mean.
I'm not sure what the venn diagram of knowledge to understand what that sentence is suggesting looks like, it's probably more crowded in the intersection than one might think.
Believe me, using the 1541 as co-processor and extra storage was super tempting and on my mind all the time! So what do you think? Flash attention with K on the front side and V on the backside? :)
That is essentially what the reasoning reinforcement training does. It is getting the model to say things that are more likely to result in the correct final answer. Everything it does in between doesn't necessarily need to be valid argument to produce the answer. You can think of it as filling the context with whatever is needed to make the right answer come out next. Valid arguments obviously help. but so might expressions of incorrect things that are not obviously untrue to the model until it sees them written out. The What's The Magic Word paper shows how far that could go. If the policy model managed to learn enough magic words it would be theoretically possible to end up with an LLM that spouts utter gibberish until delivering the correct answer seemingly out of the blue.
That's pretty cool, thanks for the extra context! (pardon the... not even pun I guess)
Also, thanks for pointing me at that specific paper; I spend a lot more of my life closer to classical control theory than ML theory so it's always neat to see the intersection of them. My unsubstantiated hypothesis is that controls & ML are going to start getting looked at more holistically, and not in the way I normal see it (which is "why worry about classical control theory, just solve the problem with RL"). Control theory is largely about steering dynamic systems along stable trajectories through state space... which is largely what iterative "fill in the next word" LLM models are doing. The intersection, I hope, will be interesting and add significant efficiency.
I once watched a news report about the then tail end of the Ceaușescu regime. One of the indicators of the level of oppression they described was that they had video cameras mounted on street lamps.
You watched some propaganda slop, since there is no evidence that the Romanian regime used video cameras on street lamps in the 1980's.
Why would they need to invest such insane amounts of money to acquire such tech (video cameras, lol, on street lamps) when they had a thriving population of curtain twitchers and snitches?
To an extent it was propaganda. I'm not sure why you think something I saw some 40 years ago would meet any definition of slop that would still retain enough meaning for the word to be used in that context.
Nevertheless, the truth of whether they actually had video cameras on streetlamps is irrelevant to the point I was making. The point is that there was a time when media coverage depicted the notion of it happening as abhorrent.
The harder to achieve has prestige due to rarity. When the rarity goes away the prestige makes whatever the item was highly popular before the prestige fades. Then the older form becomes more rare and valued by some, in a manner not quite the same as prestige but as a sort of decerning choice.
White bread did this, as did purple dye, and synthetic materials.
>Tesla has a pattern of making deceptive promises and deceptive disclosures but this article doesn't make that case at all.
This is something I find frequently as well, moreso with Musk related things than Tesla. Lord knows there are plenty of things to be critical of.
If investigative journalism wants to regain the respect it once had, fewer allegations with concrete claims serves both the public and faith in media over large quantities of vague claims.
I admit if you want to sway public opinion, the latter is more effective, but is also a mechanism that doesn't require alignment with the truth. When that approach is normalised, it opens the door for anyone to shove popular opinion around.
Do you have any references for such cases? I have seen talk of such thing at risk, but I am unaware of any specific instances of it occuring
reply