xtajv
many yaks to shave. many bikesheds to paint.
if you're paid by the line, why not go to town...
> Do not attribute to malice that which can be attributed to really weird usecases.
see also, xkcd.com/1172 (spacebar heating)
somebody wake me up when we have "SLSA, but for model provenance".
I don't (just) want "open weight + verified distribution". I want a dang audit trail.
If/when one of these models is trusted enough to make real decisions with teeth, and if/when one of those decisions screws up badly enough to hurt somebody, I want to be able to play back the tape and pinpoint the source dataset + training method responsible for the failure. At LEAST at a coarse level, on par with something like modern RPO SLAs.
P.S. this comment is applicable to pretrained models in general. I don't care if it came from China, USA, or model weights scrawled in sharpie on a random bathroom stall. I just want to know the provenance and have enough information to run a blameless "git blame" (or equivalent) if/when things go wrong.
P.P.S. IMHO, we aren't there (yet), but OTOH this proposal ain't a bad place to start.
Treat the thing as a giant peripheral. Dumb monitor.
Try kicking over a building sometime. (Or don't - you'll stub your toe).
That and "oh, it's just software for a website that doesn't do anything important that couldn't actually damage anything".
Yup (and it's not ageism).
I'm young and stupid but forced by circumstance to practice a certain degree of respect for my own stupidity.
My philosophy is, "I write code like I expect it to outlive me".
Because sloppy work --AI generated or otherwise-- has a tendency to come back to haunt you.
Pinning certificates in a browser was a brilliant idea for Chrome because web browsers are not made for technical users.
But pinning certificates in a compiler? It's reminding me of that one time where the NSA handed out DES constants to use and said "just trust me, bro". I don't even care that the DES constants ultimately ended up being protections against differential-cryptanalysis SCA (which, btw, the NSA then undermined by arguing for shorter keylengths in "export-grade crypto").
Get off my lawn.
Build another one.
made me throw up in my mouth a little bit.
Wake me up when somebody tells them that they still have to pay for electricity.
There's no harm in critically examining why a tradition is there (especially if harmful in other ways). But a lot of the time, "it's a long story" does actually have a reasonable story.
> The only thing that bothered me is that gender affirming is in fact an amputation, because they gave their clitorises to science.
one of the linked articles reads
> Peters collected samples from one side of dorsal nerve tissue, a small amount of which is typically trimmed during gender-affirming phalloplasty procedures.
which suggests the situation was perhaps less bothersome than you thought. (It sounds like the outcome was identical from the perpsective of the transmasculine individuals getting surgery- the only difference was the choice to analyze medical waste).
The studio must've done something worse than introduce new technology, because they found a way to get Nic Cage to turn down a role.
- Whatever Matthew McConaughey did to protect himself legally against AI-generated use of his likeness
- Whatever Michael Jackson's and Tupac's estates did to handle postmortem work. (Namely, MJ's album Xscape and Tupac's 2012 Coachella hologram).
- Whatever legal and economic shackles were placed on Britney Spears during her conservatorship.
- Terms of "360 deals" in the record industry.
- How SAG-AFTRA handled the introduction of CGI. Tl;dr: there's a distinction between "active performance capture" (e.g. live motion capture) vs. "passive capture" (e.g. photogrammetry scan of a face + CGI to animate it).
On another note: I remember watching BTS for National Treasure (where the treasure room scene in particular was somewhat new technology to be able to render that many reflective objects in one scene through CG alone). I know that Nicolas Cage has also done several CG-heavy films since then. Also, Nicolas Cage is a Coppola.
Overall, I imagine that the man has had enough exposure to the fiddly details of film contracts to know the difference between "the introduction of a new technology" vs. "somebody trying to screw him over".
And my 2c is that it sounds like the studio tried to screw him over.
(And I assume that there's a sliver of people who never went this route in the first place, and another sliver who never stopped).
> nobody in decades thought to make this information accessible to the programmer
> otherwise free could not work
I'm inclined to say that you just answered your own question as to why.
I was always taught that "There are parts of a binary that are there for you, the lucky high-level language programmer. And then there are other parts of the binary which are there for the compiler to clean up after the spoiled little high-level language programmer who doesn't have to write their own assembly :)"
and
"If you want to argue with the compiler, that's what `gcc -S -fverbose-asm` and $YOUR_FAVORITE_TEXT_EDITOR` is for".
But I'm curious if this advice is unrealistic for said exotic usecase.
Do tell?
"C++", perhaps? :)
Edit: And by "worked everywhere" I mean C did the heavy lifting of being a programming language that was even a little bit portable across architectures.
> if they are going to remove compatibility
C as a language has one job, and it is to not do this.
[obligatory] The original "C for ... programmers" article that convinced the world to make C as pervasive as it is today is K&R's "The C Programming Language".
I know it's in book form (egad!) and if you download a PDF, it's like 80 pages (double egad!). But it makes for surprisingly light reading.