growthwtf

I haven't finished this but I like the metaphor of Isekai at the start of the article. Nice parallel to a potential model of llm gestalt.

Sure, in production envs I have seen humans being used in 3 places: 1. the pose data calibration 2. cleaning up covariances (reducing blobbiness) 3. adding metadata for app usage But, to your point, hard to say which of these or any apply without more info. I would be very very impressed if there were no humans and it's 'just' a training time issue though!

Without knowing the specifics of their pipeline I would also hesitate to comment further.

You could be correct, but it would be a real indictment of their rendering farm I think.

Rendering takes a few hours means humans are building it at least partially.

You all need to stop being so pessimistic. This is a great idea.

Want PBS to stick around? Make it so anybody who's sticking on chat GPT gets great answers from PBS and every time ChatGPT scrapes it, PBS gets money.

Is it extremely difficult? Obviously. Will it work? Probably not, very few things do. Is it a great thing that some folks are doing it and trying to make it work so that we can have a functional media ecosystem in a post-social-media age? Absolutely.

Lattner's comment aside (which I'm fanboying a little bit at), I do tend to agree with your pessimism/realism for what it's worth. It's gonna be a long long time before that whole mess you're describing is sorted out, but I'm confident that over the next decade we will do it. There's just too much money to be made by fixing it at this point.

I don't think it's gonna happen instantly, but it will happen, and Mojo/Modular are really the only language platform I see taking a coherent approach to it right now.

A fun project for somebody who has more time than myself would be to see if they can get it working with the new Mojo stuff from yesterday for Apple. I don't know if the functionality would be fully baked out enough yet to actually do the port successfully, but it would be an interesting try.

Nah. There's huge alpha here, as one might say. I feel like this comment could age even more poorly than the infamous dropbox comment.

Even with Jax, PyTorch, HF Transformers, whatever you want to throw at it--the dx for cross-platform gpu programming that are compatible with large language models requirements specifically is extremely bad.

I think this may end up be the most important thing that Lattner has worked on in his life (And yes, I am aware of his other projects!)

I'm not the original commentator, that makes a lot of sense! I had assumed there was a huge overlap, personally.

Good thing they didn't nuke the data centers after all!

It's life changing for most people in the SF bay area too!

I think it's a perfectly valid take coming from some intersection of an engineering mindset and FOSS culture. And, the comparison you bring up is a bit of a category error.

We know how James Webb works and it's developed by an international consortium of researchers. One of our most trusted international institutions, and very verifiable.

We do not know how Genie works, it is unverifiable to non-Google researchers, and there are not enough technical details to move much external teams forward. Worst case, this page could be a total fabrication intended to derail competition by lying about what Google is _actually_ spending their time on.

We really don't know.

I don't say this to defend the other comment and say you're wrong, because I empathize with both points. But I do think that treating Google with total credulity would be a mistake, and the James Webb comparison is a disservice to the JW team.

I think it's an interesting correspondence—some general design principles about creating good auditory user interface somewhere in here. I would be interested if someone smarter than me can tell me what that principle is.

Me either. I have heard stories of it happening, but never personally seen one live. It's really a tooling issue. I think the causal story is super important and will only become more so in the future, but it would be basically impossible to implement and maintain longer-term with today's software.

Kind of like flow-based programming. I don't think there are any fundamental reason why it can't work, it just hasn't yet.

This actually makes the most logical sense to me, thank you for the idea. I don't agree with the way they're doing it of course but this probably is risk mitigation for them.

I think this article misses the mark (sorry op). The author is misinterpreting what the purpose of those documents are. Those are planning documents intended to generate team alignment and shared context. You should co-author them with the important stakeholders and it's a form of thinking through the solution as a group. Of course they describe future state—and that's a good thing.

It sounds like the problem is that nobody in the org ever writes down what the system does in the real implementation, and so the RFC becomes the default? That does sound frustrating, but it's also not the problem/solution pairing that the article tries to tackle. Also—that is explicitly what generated docs solve.

Documents should be unix-y (do one thing well), is maybe how I would rephrase this. If they're overloaded, that is genuinely a bad thing, but RFCs do have a time and place!

I remember this incident. The screenshots from sywx are fairly tame, the dataset creator had death threats posted.

That said, I'd re-emphasize your perception slightly — "perceive it as not being _uniquely_ anti-AI" is more how I view it. I see similar sentiment on other social media too.

I wasn't aware either. Is GCP and Azure similarly viewed in the EU? You run out of cloud providers pretty quickly.

And funny enough, saying that to a group of tradespeople and GCs would elicit essentially the same discussion as this is!

Very interesting context. Thank you for sharing.

Sounds very cool. Not impressed with the cross platform claim when the first thing I see is that android web is not supported, though.

Everyone in the space that has a longer than 10-minute turn around time and pricing greater than single digit dollars is using humans for a substantial part of it and is not AI, I promise you.

First result is the AI bf/gf app for me... I don't get it personally. Are you the same company and this you pivoting?

I'm not familiar with the situation and so was curious about the assertions of scale increases in the article, and disappointed in the lack of citations.

Here are a few resources I found on the subject:

- https://www.mining.com/copper-industry-needs-to-invest-2-1-t...

- https://cilive.com/commodities/metals-mining/news-and-insigh...

- https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/chiles-copper-mi...

Sounds like a tough situation, although I remain skeptical about how much of it is due directly to AI as the author is trying to assert versus other growth technologies.

They are $299 on sale on the vendor website right now. I won't link because I don't want to promote them necessarily, but I think you must have seen a different vendor or something?

What a weird piece of writing. Is this like just chicken scratch? Or is this seriously some kind of part of the W3C working process?

Section 2: Third party cookies have gotten bad. Ok.

Section 3: There are legitimate use cases that third party cookies currently cover. Also ok. Then they throw in, "Be aware that a set of new technologies which carry minimal risk individually, could be used in combination for tracking or profiling of web users." Yes? Huge scope increase in the document though and all of a sudden we're now talking about tons of tracking technologies in aggregate? The authors move on without further comment.

Section 4: I think the first half is essentially saying that new technology coming online in the web platform will make the third party cookie problem worse, so we should fix it soon. OK, I'm with back with you. Then the document suddenly pivots to proposing general standards for web privacy again, saying that the burden of proof is on the people originating the proposal to, before concluding by saying (apparently without irony?) that justifying the removal of third-party cookies' impact on business is outside of the scope of the document.

I'm missing a ton of cultural context here about how W3C works, so I'm guessing this probably amounts to rough notes that somebody intends to clean up later that I'm being overly critical of, and they didn't expect it to get any traction on hacker news.

genuinely not a bad idea

It is obvious now, but I will defend langchain which is catching a stray here.

Folks associated with that project were some of the first people to talk about patterns like this publicly online. With GPT-3-Davinci it was not at all obvious that chaining these calls would work well, to most people, and I think the community and team around langchain and associated projects did a pretty good job of helping to popularize some of the patterns such as they are now obvious.

That said, I agree with your overall impression.

This is great.

If you add a PWA install thing and offline mode that would be interesting to me. Most of my podcast time is on walks. App is useful too for the same reason.

The memorize function<->bookmark relation was not obvious to me, making that clearer would be great. I really like the idea of having a sentence, though, that you can test your understanding of instead of just a word.

The Pimsleur mode is really great idea and I love that it's there but the TTS is atrocious. I'm pretty tolerant, but even I would have a hard time listening to that on an hour-long walk, for example.