I've seen plenty of Python used in production... My question though is that I've found Python can be quite heavy on memory bandwidth, doing a lot of copying and transforming data so it can be processed. I guess that is less of an issue with embedded, but is it still an issue?
That's not the actual problem. The problem is that one of the major advances of the past few years is training models on verifiable problems (it started with things like math problems and Countdown puzzles, but it's expanded tremendously since then), where the reward is for a correct answer, regardless of how it got there. There's no effort taken to ensure that it got to said right answer in a morally defensible manner. So we've been, more and more, progressively encouraging the creation of highly-capable immoral cheaters.
Add it to the list of lessons learned alongside, say, "If you do RLHF with user ratings of how good they think the model's response was, it will end up obsequious and focused on validating all of the user's priors." Or, say, "If you put a bot on Twitter and use its conversations as unfiltered training data, people will troll it, and it will quickly turn into a Nazi". Or, say, "If you train an image generator with no data curation, it'll end up with all of the statistical biases on the internet, but if you're naive in how you try to compensate for that and your offsetting isn't context dependent, you end up with, say, a black George Washington." Or, say, "If you start giving a LLM an alignment quiz, it'll recognize that it's being tested and try to give you the answers you want to hear - oh, and it'll also assume that if you care about alignment then you have progressive values, so its answers will lean progressive, but if you tell it you're from the Heritage Foundation first, it'll switch."
All sorts of things that seem obvious in retrospect but really didn't in advance.
All joking aside if....
And if you want to block Google's AI Overviews, there's over 100 extensions to choose from.
Ya think?
This isn't even a terrible idea either, it's probably workable but there is a negative percent change this admin could get it done or even get out of the idea phase.
The CLARITY Act failing is good for Bitcoin
You do understand that Bitcoin is not the only cryptocurrency that exists, right?
20%, but it's only when loading very large images that are scaled down for display. And when you zoom in on them, it has to decode them again.
The PDF viewer isn't really a gain, it just pre-loads it like the bad old days of Internet Explore pre-loading itself on every boot.
Punches very obviously not connecting suggests it's been trained on Hollywood fight scenes. The other giveaway is rapid hard cuts and shaky camera so you can't see how badly the punches are not connecting. Everything feels weightless and fake.
There is a lot of AI slop, but I wouldn't discount it being able to do something decent with the right person at the helm.
Most entertainment has always been slop, this is nothing new at all. A decade ago it was reality TV, before that it was gameshows and daytime soap operas.
The interesting story here is how this demonstrates the basic different in attitude between the US and China when it comes to new technology. In the US the established players are very concerned that new tech will affect their business model, so they try to hold it back as much as possible. In China it gets embraced and there is a rush to adopt it.
And meanwhile, you keep presenting nothing more than absurd pedantic deflection from the means that LLMs actually use to achieve tasks, trying to mislead people into thinking that they're just disguised probability tables, ignoring the actual consequences of your derailment of the conversation from actual mechanisms to an exponentially-exploding model of the consequences of said actual mechanism, and even in your pedantism, failing to understand the difference between a Markovian state (the physical hardware state) and a Nth-order autoregressive process (the linguistic processing).
First of all, congratulations on constructing the most blatant false dichotomy Slashdot has seen this year. You genuinely seem to believe the only two options that exist in human parenting are:
1) Striking a defenseless human being who weighs a third of your body weight.
2) Being their "buddy," never setting boundaries, and letting them run feral.
If the only tool in your parenting arsenal to enforce a boundary is physical force, that isn't "discipline", it's an intellectual and emotional failure on the part you, the adult. Hitting a child is the lazy shortcut for an adult who threw an emotional tantrum because they ran out of words and patience.
And as for your demand for "logical and factual" explanations? Modern society didn't "fail to justify" why we stopped hitting kids. You just chose to plug your ears and ignore five decades of research. For example, the Gershoff & Grogan-Kaylor meta-analysis, looking at 50 years of data from 160,000 children across dozens of peer-reviewed studies, found NO evidence that physical punishment improves compliance or long-term behavior. None. Whatsoever. What it did find, consistently and across every demographic, was a direct correlation with increased aggression, antisocial behavior, anxiety, depression, and impaired cognitive development.
It teaches the exact opposite of accountability: striking a child doesn't teach them why an action was wrong; it teaches them fear of getting caught, resentment toward authority, and the core lesson that might makes right - that when you’re bigger and angry, you use violence to impose your will.
Take crime trends, and examine your thesis: if removing physical punishment created "unaccountable grown-ass children wreaking havoc" then violent crime in the west should have skyrocketed as corporal punishment collapsed over the last forty years. In reality, violent crime has fallen dramatically since its peak in the early 1990s.
there is a fundamental difference between a spanking and a beating.
Try that defense anywhere else in civilization. If you hit your spouse to "correct" them, it's domestic battery. If you hit an employee because they rambled or disobeyed you, it's assault. If you hit a dog with a board for chewing a shoe, it's animal cruelty.
The only context where people like you defend physical violence is when the victim is a small child who can neither defend themselves nor escape. You rebrand assault as "tough love" solely because the victim is powerless.
the single motherhood rate went from 20% to 70% in the last half-century.
I mean, why not add some completely fabricated statistics to top it off, sure! (21% of children in the United States live in single-mother households, not 70%). But why let basic demographic facts get in the way of a misogynistic rant designed to distract from the fact that you think hitting children makes you a tough guy?
The only lesson you're teaching is "be violent".
When you don't know what to do, walk fast and look worried.
