notnullorvoid
At current GPU pricing you're right, unless you highly value running uncensored models, data ownership, and/or privacy.
I suspect had that test url been to a S3 bucket url rather than Alibaba, Cohere wouldn't have even bothered to write the article. This is the kind of FUD I would expect from a US based AI company.
Cohere should be attempting to build bridges with Chinese AI companies, not burn them.
Finding out that TVs are listening does not mean Google and Facebook aren't. I've had plenty of times in an old car, or on a walk talking about something only to have related ads pop up later.
https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/votes/44/1/190?view=par...
I didn't even read the text or look at the date... Reading what that C-22 was actually about I'm glad that one got a near unanimous yes vote.
And seeing the actual results makes me more hopeful that the senate may not allow it through.
The votes for this bill seem to indicate that nearly all MPs regardless of party voted in favour, and none of them voted against.
Are you sure the dogs are not already off leash in your area when you are running by. There are many owners who simply have their untrained dogs off leash when they probably shouldn't.
It's pretty clear that the cyclic nature is a part of the story.
The amount of training data for incremental/derived data systems is quite sparse in the grand scheme of things. I've seen little to no improvement over the last year when testing new models in that area, they always make some pretty bad mistakes, and what is correct is very inefficient.
CF workerd is only one out of those 5.
Given it's server focus though, I'd be very surprised if it was as good as Deno for giving agents a local code sandbox.
Extremely disappointing...
Currently that's a large brute force problem. But my gut is telling me is that finding a forward pass method of restraining private key generation such that we know what kind of public key hash to expect at the end, should be easier than cracking elliptic curves.
I guess depending on your outlook some might view that as "reversing" a hash, but it's not like you are getting the original input which is a impossible problem (unless there is a bunch of info you already know about the input).
- Using mouse less
- Ergonomic keyboard
- Learning to type better (I still suck, but speed is fast enough, and I don't get a soar neck or fingers from my previous glance at KB then back to monitor and smash keys)
- Positioning top of monitor to eye level
- Gradually transitioning from programming through rapid trial and error, to building and exploring logical models of programs in my head, then type out some code that usually works.
All my experiments and usage of AI if anything lead to more typing rather than less.
Glad if it's working now regardless though, I also see some experimental support for coverage in the docs now.
- packages in workspaces can be used as dependencies without compilation (node's type stripping doesn't support this)
- a good permissions model for limiting access to system fs, net, etc.
- native WebGPU support (including building a windowed app without a web view)
- desktop gui builds that allow using Chromium embedded or WebView
- built-in linter, benchmark, coverage, etc.
> If they were to offer total privacy, is it ok for the public to use chat to get advice on _how_ to commit a crime?
Yes it should be, but it should be illegal for a company providing chat service to respond with anything other than a refusal when doing so.
That detection and refusal should be a private closed loop though, anonymizing any data that will be passed into a training pipeline, or ads targeting. This requirement for closed loop private chats should be mandated by law sooner than later. Otherwise we're getting into very tricky territory where the temptation of alerting on things like pre-crime grows too close.
Not recently, they have a long history of being controversial.
Ideally we'd have consumer protection laws that prevent companies from doing things like using HWIDs to ban accounts.