A lot of areas in Western Europe are either completely deforested or have very weird low-density half-dead wooded areas, especially Germany. One has to go all the way to Poland/Serbia/Bulgaria to get a real forest experience again.
Surprisingly, this seems to be not true. Moscow, a city of 10+ million people, has huge forests inside or adjacent to the city limits. People leave rubbish here and there, but unless forests are rezoned and actively developed as "recreation zones" or some such, they are doing okay. One can easily find more species of birds in a large Moscow park than in the whole of Baden-Wuerttemberg. The trick is not depleting the ecosystem to begin with.
How are they different? If you "know" something, you are 100% confident in it, which gives you an easy 0 for this question (or a surprising 1). Philosophically, the problem is more that there is no difference between confidently and modestly wrong in terms of consequences of binary decisions.
The Brier score is pathological when the guess is 0.5: regardless of the outcome, it will be equal to 0.25, so if you define "better than random" as having a score < 0.25, actually acting randomly makes you "overconfident".
The article spends a lot of time on criticising technocratic ideas of tech capitalists, who haven’t actually achieved anything in the political sphere so far, and doesn’t even mention China where quite a few of strikingly similar ideas are being implemented under the guise of a Marxist/Jinpingist system with modern characteristics.
"TurboQuant proved it can quantize the key-value cache to just 3 bits without requiring training or fine-tuning and causing any compromise in model accuracy" -- what do each 3 bits correspond to? Hardly individual keys or values, since it would limit each of them to 8 different vectors.
reply