You'd be better off mentioning Safari (17% of users vs. Chrome's 68% and Firefox's 2.2%) and Bing (10% vs Google's 85% and DDG's 1.7%). But nice to know there are two of us!
What? Of course it isn't! I mean, I guess you could argue that it's technically a slur in the sense that it is disparaging, but obviously the guy knows that he's being disparaging- you use that word to draw connection to identitarian slurs which are inherently wrong, and bureaucrat is not that. It also refers specifically and exclusively to the parts of the government that aren't democratically elected; the opposite of what you're saying.
Even setting that aside, 'the fat cheeto and his deplorable clowns in congress' is a slur for a democratically elected government, "the will of the people". So what? We shouldn't be allowed to insult a democratically elected government for some reason? Democracies are certainly preferable to autocracies, but that doesn't mean 'democratically elected' is a synonym for 'good'.
"you use that word to draw connection to identitarian slurs which are inherently wrong"
you are reading into this too much, slur is often used as a word for a general insult.
Doesn't make a lot of sense to me to respond to 'I don't want to deal with their bureaucrats' with 'You do realize that's an insult, right?'. Yeah, he realizes, he is clearly trying to be insulting. It's only an insult because of that intent, in fact. A lot more sensible if the intent is to suggest that the word ought not be used because it is an insult beyond what is acceptable in polite society, which is the much more common usage of 'slur'.
Not to say it's impossible you're right that it's being brought up irrelevantly, but I do think the odds are on my side and I further think it would be worth writing a sentence calling that out even if they weren't.
His point, I assume, was that many people insulting beurocrats think that those are somehow seperate from the people they elected i.e. it's not some unidentifiable blob responsible for these things but the person /you/ voted for. At least that's my charitable interpretation.
I don't think this is a question of framing or ignoring problematic behavior at all. I'm quite certain that you wouldn't find it anywhere near comparably egregious if Google added a new developer option without your consent- the most significant problem is the 4GB and the LLM. And, of course, you did consent to their software terms. You are free to switch browsers. What does consent have to do with this?
yes, no one would have a problem with it if it were useful, so what, they're hypocrites if they don't like it because it's useless? actually, people generally only complain about consent when they didn't like what happened. the takeaway is that if it's an update that will be thrusted upon a user, deliver value for them. and it's your problem, not the user's, to persuade them that what you're thrusting upon them has value.
They mean the models are rare, not the devices. The claim is if you want feature X + removable battery, it's unlikely that you will find it. People's willingness to forgo the battery for feature X therefore doesn't tell you if people care about removable batteries in an absolute sense, just that they care relatively less than they do about feature X.
You could argue that the market already reflects people's desires via, eg., Apple's market research. They could argue that democracy in the EU also reflects people's desires.
Am I misreading that paper? They define hallucinations as anything other than the correct answer and prove that there are infinitely many questions an LLM can't answer correctly, but that's true of any architecture- there are infinitely many problems a team of geniuses with supercomputers can't answer. If an LLM can be made to reliably say "I don't know" when it doesn't, hallucinations are solved- they contend that this doesn't matter because you can keep drawing from your pile of infinite unanswerable questions and the LLM will either never answer or will make something up. Seems like a technically true result that isn't usefully true.
>The source in your link for that energy claim links to a blog post that then links back to an earlier blog post from the original author of the link you provided (it's basically a circular reference).
Huh? The latter blog post does link to the former's blog, but not as a source for that claim. It cites an Altman blog, an estimate from EpochAI, an article in the MIT Technology Review (albeit one that estimates 3x higher), and a paper put out by Google. It's really surprisingly well cited and I don't know how you came away from it thinking it was a circular reference. The google study is in the subheading!
2) I click the link associated with the 0.3 Wh of energy claim in the section "The full cost of a prompt".
3) The link from 2) takes me to a blog post from Hannah Ritchie. In Hannah's post, I click a link associated with the following excerpt:
"Third, as a result, more recent estimates suggested that the assumptions I relied on (h/t to Andy Masley’s work on this) — that one standard query used 3 watt-hours (Wh) of electricity — were possibly an order of magnitude too high. In this case, I was happy to be conservative and overestimate the energy use."
4) This link takes me to the author of your original post, but earlier.
None of this quantifies cost per token, which is really the much more relevant metric than whatever a "cost per text based query" means => which I think is both quite broad and quite model dependent.
What I want to know is who is manufacturing these police cars that let these cops travel to execute unlawful warrants. "Oh, but it's not our fault. We just built due-process-violation machines. It's the police who are driving them to citizen's locations and violating due process." Come on.
~Everybody is motivated by money or else not motivated at all. Money is potential energy for essentially any objective you might have, whether that's developing new tech or donating to charity. By cutting money out, you just select for the subset of people who are more motivated by power or status or who already have more money than they know what to do with.
It should be obvious that there's a balance between wanting enough money to live comfortably and wanting as much money as possible. Government jobs should be good enough for the former.
It's not clear the mismanaged massive evacuation was even necessary. In hindsight its like that less people would have died if they just stayed there for a few more days.
reply