looks cool! one bit of feedback: make your demo gif get to the point faster. either practice typing a bit quicker or speed it up 2x for the typing section
on Bun's website, the runtime section features HTTP, networking, storage -- all are very web-focused. any plans to start expanding into native ML support? (e.g. GPUs, RDMA-type networking, cluster management, NFS)
Probably not. When we add new APIs in Bun, we generally base the interface off of popular existing packages. The bar is very high for a runtime to include libraries because the expectation is to support those APIs ~forever. And I can’t think of popular existing JS libraries for these things.
we've discovered some kind of differentiable computer[1] and as with all computers, people have their own interests and hobbies they use them for. but unlike computers, everyone pitches their interest or hobby as being the only one that matters.
one thing I've learned in my career is that escape hatches are one of the most important things in tools made for building other stuff.
dropping down into the familiar or the simple or the dumb is so innately necessary in the building process. many things meant to be "pure" tend to also be restrictive in that regard.
Functional languages are not necessarily pure though. Actually outside Haskell don't most functional first languages include escape hatches? F# is the one I have the most experience with and it certainly does.
what makes you say this? modern LLMs (the top players in this leaderboard) are typically equipped with the ability to execute arbitrary Python and regularly do math + random generations.
I agree it's not an efficient mechanism by any means, but I think a fine-tuned LLM could play near GTO for almost all hands in a small ring setting
To play GTO currently you need to play hand ranges. (For example when looking at a hand I would think: I could have AKs-ATs, QQ-99, and she/he could have JT-98s, 99-44, so my next move will act like I have strength and they don't because the board doesn't contain any low cards). We have do this since you can't always bet 4x pot when you have aces, the opponents will always know your hand strength directly.
LLM's aren't capable of this deception. They can't be told that they have some thing, pretend like they have something else, and then revert to gound truth. Their egar nature with large context leads to them getting confused.
On top of that there's a lot of precise math. In no limit the bets are not capped, so you can bet 9.2 big blinds in a spot. That could be profitable because your opponents will call and lose (eg the players willing to pay that sometimes have hands that you can beat). However betting 9.8 big blinds might be enough to scare off the good hands. So there's a lot of probiblity math with multiplication.
Deep math with multiplication and accuracy are not the forte of llm's.
Agreed. I tried it on a simple game of exchanging colored tokens from a small set of recipes. Challenged it to start with two red and end up with four white, for instance. I failed. It would make one or two correct moves, then either hallucinate a recipe, hallucinate the resulting set of tiles after a move, or just declare itself done!
> endurance sport which is a natural target for doping
This makes a lot of sense to me. A very singular goal of "maximum output" without much need for fine motor skills and strategizing. I'd guess sprinting/marathons might have similar issues?
But like Jorgenson said this year, there’s no tactics that can beat Pogi going up a steep hill at 7w/kg. At some point it all comes down to power to weight.
Stage 21 was a great example of how tactics can beat a stronger rider. Pogacar was probably the strongest but Matteo burned up his energy chasing attacks in the final lap and then at the right moment WvA was ready to pounce and take the stage.
Sure it was great to see Wout win again - in Paris no less! And it does kind of validate the TVL strategy of “wear Pogi out with 3 super hard weeks of racing.”
Unfortunately for them it just wasn’t enough to make the difference in the GC.
I wouldn't deny that (and probably should have caveated this in my OP), but compared to a basketball or football team, the benefit of smart play doesn't seem as significant compared to doping up and pressing hard.
>the benefit of smart play doesn't seem as significant compared to doping up and pressing hard.
For the athlete, or for the team?
For professional racing strategy is in the hands of the team members on the sidelines - it's less of a team sport (as in athlete) and more of a group sport (as in information parity.) Whether it's motor races or TdF, there's a significant number of factors to consider. What you are going to have your team do? What are other teams doing? What you should do in response to what they're doing? What will they do in response to your response? What is the average performance of your team? What is the current and maximum performance? What's the condition of the equipment? What tires are being used? What is the forecast for the next few hours? How will changes in weather impact the equipment used? Will you have enough spares to make it through? Do you have good comms between you and the athletes? Etc.
For example, sometimes two athletes on the same team might be one behind the other, only for the coach to tell the lead to let the other teammate to pass. For the audience, it might be unclear why or it might even feel unfair, but there are reasons why they made that call.
Maybe the leader looks gassed and needs to hang back to collect himself.
Maybe they want to encourage the secondary by giving him the reigns for a while, and in turn, push the lead to work harder.
Maybe they want to keep the wear and tear a little lower on the lead by holding him back in case a team close behind ends up overtaking in a sharp turn up ahead.
Maybe they're worried about a pile up that hasn't been cleared yet.
Maybe the sun will be facing the direction of their next turn, so the secondary is providing shade for the lead.
So on and so fourth. An individual athlete can only receive and process so much of that information in a cohesive way.
sure, numerous examples can be shown to say smart play does help. but, would you argue the net benefits of smart play are identical between a sport like basketball and racing?
I thought the same but after watching the Netflix TdF documentary I would not agree to your statement anymore. Team strategy plays a huge role as e.g. driving in the slipstream saves up to 40% of your energy expenditure.
