When are users going to learn that any data they only have one copy of, they're just one error (human or electronic) from having zero copies of?

Would you turn your laptop over to an intern and expect they'll never fuck it up? Because we're basically doing the same thing when we hand the keys to an Agent. The only reasonable move is to never operate on the only copy of anything, if you can possibly avoid it.

The "unaware" problem is largely because the target is actively trying to anticipate and dodge, and it takes a fraction of a second to track and recalculate... by which time the target has already moved again. First they had to figure out how to target and attack. They did this. Then they had to figure out how to dodge and anticipate incoming attacks. They did this. Human combatants would (with practice) learn to compensate for this as well, which is when it really helps to anticipate what evasive maneuvers the opponent has at their disposal. The robots are still figuring this part out. But humans have the same problem, both physics and the speed of information processing mean our movements will always be "behind the curve". We deal with it by guessing where the curve is pointing, and sometimes being wrong, because going for the apparent target will *always* be wrong unless you're fighting a fence post.

A 16 GB 6800XT is going for under $500 these days, if you're willing to cross the CUDA/ROCm divide.

I think you are giving him too much credit. He has someone read it to him.

It could matter, if your planning requires operating at an international level, and the AI conveniently neglects to mention that outsiders practically never win court cases in China. Or even if it just has an allergy to talking about June 4, 1989 (which has showed up in the real world). The choice of using another culture's AI to avoid the biases of your own culture has merit, but it also means you won't have a lifetime of experience with the biases it *does* have.

They MIGHT even have to HIRE!

Any quantization beyond Q4_0 goes mad (losing context, making category errors, malforming markup tags, mangling and inventing words) long before the context reaches a size I would consider "useful". I've tried running 31B at IQ3_XS and it looks alright from a distance, for a few prompts at a time. Unfortunately the errors compound and semantic drift goes into runaway. I have no interest in playing with quantizations any smaller than that. The only thing "massively wrong" is the suitability of a 2-bit quantization for my actual use. I've investigated it, and it can be an amusing toy, but it is far from usable for any meaningful work.

Even Q4_K_M was too error-prone for meaningful use, and I was using Q5_K_M as my baseline of "usable for a while". Fortunately, most of the heavily quantized models are based on QAT releases now, and a 4-bit QAT model is pretty much on par with a 5-bit non-QAT model.

DeepMind has released Gemma 4, which doesn't include their largest models, but 31B is a creditable model. I wish I could say the same about the 26B-A4B model, which is just smart enough to be entertaining for a few days or weeks, then everything it does starts to sound the same. Unfortunately, 31B on my hardware (i5-8500, 48 GB DDR4, 12 GB RTX 3060) runs at 0.3 to 1.2 t/s. So while I'm not a big fan of Alphabet's business practices at large, they aren't regressing. Switching to the MIT license basically means they're abdicating all control over derivatives.

The only thing Grok ever really did for open weight AI was show up for the party a couple times. At first, this helped establish a baseline that could never be retracted, but it hasn't proven to be particularly important. Everything since has been far off the bleeding edge, but they collect their participation trophies. I think their subsequent actions have gone a long way toward demonstrating their purposes, which are wholly selfish. They'll do as little as they can to contribute while retaining the benefits of being perceived as open and competitive.

This exists in the Mac world as well, but the primary reason I'm tied to Windows for my DAW is because I can't register my instrument because Native Instruments never bothered making a registration app for Linux.

I used to think that. Then I looked at the math. The amount of money possessed by the billionares and a trillionare pale in the face of the size (and needs) of the actual economy. Just having no rich people doesnâ(TM)t mean society suddenly has a bunch of wealth. Like you can generate wealth once, for like a year, and then there is nobody to take money from any more, and everyone is back where they were: same expenses, same income as today. But mysteriously, nobody wants to make businesses actually workâ¦. So the income starts to decay, the prices rise, and with nobody to blame, people start going really weird. And everyone feels that they have a veto power over anything that bothers them, so: bye-bye innovation of every kind. Look at how neighbors police their neighborhoods, and then scale that to every business civilization-wide. Nothing new will ever be created. âoeSafety.â âoeEnvironment.â âoeThreatening jobs.â Everything just⦠stops.

Depreciation is high, meaning you're mostly paying for a name—which people probably aren't going to do anymore. I was just looking at the market for used Polestar 2s last week: a 2024 AWD model with 48k miles (so someone leased it for three years and put every mile allowed onto it) can be had for $29k. This was almost identical to the pricing of a used Hyundai Ioniq 5 with AWD, and the Ioniq started about $5k cheaper.

While a sudden simultaneous shutdown is sometimes unavoidable, there is no reason why everything has to come back up at exactly the same time. Certainly, supercomputers of decades past didn't expect that all systems would spring to life simultaneously.

Something violent happened to Uranus. Why do you think it's tipped over on its side?

So who is to blame when someone uses a model that has had the safety rails deliberately stripped off, like a Heretic or Abliterix fine tune? These are generally couched in "for research purposes only" terms, but I use an Abliterix fine tune of Gemma 4 26B-A4B as my "daily driver". It absolutely never refuses anything, although it spends a lot of time patting itself on the back for understanding what I say well enough to paraphrase it (reasonably) accurately.

Having $40 million in gold would be on-brand for a Russian oligarch. I have no idea why he would need to do this inside the U.S. though.