The first time had enough plausible deniability that he meant it in a "See what happens" type of way.

I still think that is the most reasonable interpretation of his statements but he's intentionally playing into the media to keep the debate going. Letting people hear what they want to hear; Those that want to believe he meant the bad version (either because they like the message; or want to be mad about it) will hear that way. Those that want to believe he meant the innocent version will believe that.

It's just very sick. What a disgusting terrorist.

CRAM is an utterly goated name

I was never that into the open source community, but I did admire it from afar.

I don't see how anyone would ever contribute to open source now, knowing it will just be thrown into the meat processor.

GPT is basically a machine that builds machines.

We understand how the machine builder works. We don't understand how the output of the machine works. Like mechanically we understand each individual sub-component works e.g. a single matrix multiplication, but we don't understand why specific weights are the value they are, or the broader macrostructure.

I don't think you realize that acting like "No we actually do understand how it works" just reveals that you don't understand the question, it does not show that the question has an answer.

Please explain what this one specific weight is, and why that value shouldn't be higher or lower.

It's just a series of 10 trillion floats. And we don't really know what the individual floats represent and changing them degrades performance but hey

Technically. It's just if statements.

Great edit. I love this.

And they all think they are extremely original and creative.

Like a bunch of yellow snow flakes.

It's a 20/80 rule thing.

Coming up with a proof is the first 20% of work. Actually checking and validating the proof is the next 80% of work.

Yes I agree. To reach my current comp in basically any field, it would be a 10 year grind.

I'm better off just sitting in tech and letting inflation eat away my TC over the next 20 years until it pays similar to other low-end eng work. But in the mean time I'll make above-average while working 30 hours/week. Woe is me.

The lack of a universally agreed upon definition does imply the lack of an objective definition. And it also does not imply there isn't a general definition that most people agree on that works in most cases.

Almost all words have different meanings when you get into a specific niche. "Elastic" in casual contexts means stretchy, but in physics contexts, specifically describes a materials ability to return to it's prior state after being stretched. But if I said "Elastic" lacks a definition in physics entirely, we wouldn't run around saying "nothing is elastic".

Yet for some reason people do that exact thing with Vegetables/fish.

You can double an hourly rate to approximate the annual wage. $30/hr ~= $60k / year.

Because 50 paid weeks * 40 paid hours = 2000 hours -> 2k

$30 * 2k = $60k