mentalically

-

-

-

Some studies are also linking it to increased risk of aggressive cancers.¹ ²

1: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-36013-7

2: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10202899/

Anticipated by Stanislaw Lem in his History of Intellectronics.

Eventually people will figure out how to nest neural networks in the nodes and edges of an arbitrary graph.

I see those have the streamlined nutrition delivery and excrement management systems. It's a little out of my pay grade.

That's a little too sci-fi for me but I am sure many youngsters with higher risk tolerance would be happy to pay a subscription fee for more streamlined nutrition delivery systems.

Preferably with some spices to make it palatable.

It does seem like everything is heading in that direction.

There is an old saying about the future being here but unevenly distributed. The pods look nice and would be even nicer with some kind of daily meal kit for a few extra dollars.

Well done. I'd change a few things to make things technically more precise. In a few places you use words like "learnable" parameter but I think this tends to confuse people more than help them understand what is going on. People can learn but parameters can only be modified according to some rule that minimizes or maximizes some objective function of those parameters. People who understand the technical details tend to use words/phrases like "learning" as shorthand but in an introductory post like this it is useful to be technically precise and not use anthropomorphisms that can confuse beginners.

What are you confused about? Their value proposition is very simple and obvious, custom hardware with a compiler that transforms existing graphs into a format that can run at lower cost and higher efficiency because it utilizes a special instruction set only available on Cerebras silicon.

I wonder how long it will go before it devolves into complete incoherence. It already seems incoherent so probably in a few updates it will be completely unreadable.

That's correct and if you read the whole thing you will realize that it is followed by "... to leap over GPUs" which indicates that they're not literally referring to optimizing the weights of the graph on a new architecture or freshly initialized variables on existing ones.

The value proposition of Cerebras is that they can compile existing graphs to their hardware and allow inference at lower costs and higher efficiencies. The title does not say anything about creating or optimizing new architectures from scratch.

It was probably generated with an LLM and as far as I can tell it does seem like complete nonsense.

On May 3, 2021 I wrote a note to myself about the type of people OpenAI was hiring and this was the note: looks like OpenAI is getting into the military business by hiring a former CIA clandestine operator Will Hurd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Hurd. Seems like I was right but this should be expected because every corporation is in one way or another linked to the military industrial complex.

In the most general case there is no technique that can determine if two programs are equivalent other than running both programs on some set of inputs and verifying that the outputs (after termination) are the same. Every other technique must cut out all possible sources of non-termination to get around the halting problem in order to make the resulting equivalence relation on the set of programs effectively computable and constructively provable.

Incidences of cancers are increasing (partly due to better screening) and I'm sure it will eventually be linked to pervasive plastic pollution in the food and water just like smoking was eventually linked to lung cancer.

How do they account for confabulations and hallucinations?