Yes and no. With AI tools, people who know nothing about a code base have a much faster path to making small changes — the kind of changes where someone familiar with the code base could review it in thirty seconds, but could also make the change in thirty seconds if they had time. AI massively increases velocity at the fringes.

But for more complicated changes, in many cases, having AI write the code can cause the author to spend almost as long reviewing the changes as it would have taken to write them, because gaining adequate understanding of the code and paging back in memory of how things work would normally have occurred during the natural course of writing the code, a little as a time, and would have been a decent percentage of the time spent writing the code. When reviewing code written by someone else, you're back-loading that work at review time.

And it also introduces some added risk, because if your code reviewer doesn't know that the change was written by a bot and assumes that you already put the time into making sure it was mostly correct, their review might be more cursory, because they may not take the time to think about all of those details. So if you as the code submitter don't do this, the code quality may suffer severely.

Ad astra per aspera. Strangely fitting. :-D

Worse. It's like the HR lady who writes the telephone sanitization SOPs and has no background in microbiology, health or any relevant field. They're making it up as they go along.

to the point where the model reasons entirely or almost entirely in latent space

Early models did all their work in latent space. Then someone figured out that you could run them repeatedly so they could do things step-wise and called that "chain of thought." Then someone else (re)discovered that you could reuse some of your layers and get better results for more computation but the same amount of parameters and memory, which is what "recurrent depth" seems to be. That's just like adding more layers, which nobody cares about, but someone gave it a fancy name so now its the end of the world.

https://sebastianraschka.com/b...

Anyone who says we need to do X to solve climate change is wrong, because there is no one "X" that does it.

We need renewables, nuclear, electrification, synthetic fuels, forestation, mangroves, direct air capture, BECCS, biochar, enhanced rock weathering, cloud enhancement to increase albedo, possibly orbital solar shading, ocean alkalinity enhancement, and more that I don't know about including things maybe no one has yet thought of.

We created this problem through a wide variety of mechanisms, burning many different kinds of fossil fuels in many different contexts, and we're going to need an even wider variety to fix it.

It's called a carbon tax. Maybe you've heard of it? Maybe you've voted against it? Lots of people have.

I grew up in a rural community. The farmers all think global warming is a liberal conspiracy. But they're also happy to tell you how it just doesn't get cold in the winter like it used to, they're constantly worried because the spring melt isn't ever as much water as it was twenty years ago, and the weather has just been crazy unpredictable the last decade or so.

We aren't going to stop flying, we aren't going to setup a factories in every country to reduce global shipping, we're not going to stop eating meat and we're not going to all magically transition to an EV that's backed by 100% clean energy.

We will if it gets hot enough. Almost no one flew a hundred years ago because they didn't have enough money. If there are food shortages, water wars and mass migrations from coastal cities and the tropics most people will again be too poor to fly, meat will be a luxury and goods shipped around the world will be exotic luxuries, just like they were a century ago.

And even if they happened faster, it still wouldn't be enough. The focus on emissions reduction to the exclusion of everything else is going to kill a lot of people.

The only way we're going to fix this is to get to net negative, and while emissions reduction can help it will never be enough. That being the case, we should be investing a lot into capture and sequestration research.

Absolutely. We should admit that we're in for some more CO2 rise before we can make it fall, no matter what we do, and invest in geoengineering research focused on techniques to directly reduce insolation and ocean acidification.

None of this is either/or. We need to be doing all of this in parallel: Electrification, renewables, nuclear, and synthetic fuels to reduce burning of fossil fuels, carbon recapture, especially at high-intensity carbon sourced (e.g. cement plants), but also from the atmosphere, and geoengineering to directly cool the planet and increase ocean pH. And we can... but the laser focus on renewables and electrification and renewables is harming the future.

That seems like it would be relatively easy, and safe as long as no one makes a suicide cord and tries to use it to power the house. I don't know if any of this class of equipment provides it.

"Death penalties should be public, should be quick, it should be televised. I think at a certain age, it’s an initiation... What age should you start to see public executions?"
"We need to have a Nuremberg-style trial for every gender-affirming clinic doctor. We need it immediately."
"You quote Leviticus 19, love your neighbor as yourself. The chapter before affirms God's perfect law when it comes to sexual matters... in Leviticus 18, is that thou shall lay with another man shall be stoned to death."
Stoning gay people to death is "God's perfect law"
Trans people are to blame for inflation: "There's a direct connection to inflation and the trans issue. You say, Charlie, come on. They couldn't be further apart. No, they're exactly the same. They're the same in this aspect—when you believe that men can become women, why wouldn't you also believe that you could print wealth? If you believe that someone can change their gender, why wouldn't you also believe that money is wealth?"
Blacks "were actually better in the 1940s. It was bad. It was evil. But what happened? Something changed. They committed less crimes." (yes, despite the Piers Morgan "fact check", while his reasons for believing black people were better off under segregation was unrelated to segregation itself, he very much did repeatedly argue that black people were better off in the 1940s)
"If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, ‘Boy, I hope he’s qualified.’"
Juneteenth: "It is a neo-segregationist federal holiday, is what it is... The entire point of it, as per postmodernists do and deconstructionists, is to subvert July 4."
We should have "just took care of" trans people "the way we used to take care of things in the 1950s and '60s"
"The Haitians that are in Huntsville that are raping your women and hunting you down at night - it’s only gonna get worse.. There will be hundreds of thousands of Haitians brought into Alabama, and they will become your masters."
"Haiti is legitimately infested with demonic voodoo. I’ve talked to missionaries that have gone there and they say they’ve seen the darkest stuff... people levitating and turning into cats at night."
"Jewish donors have a lot of explaining to do.. Because Jewish donors have been the No. 1 funding mechanism of radical, open border neoliberal quasi-Marxist policies, cultural institutions and nonprofits. This is a beast created by secular Jews. And now it’s coming for Jews.. It’s the nonprofits, it’s the movies, it’s Hollywood, it’s all of it."
Calling Joy Reid, Michelle Obama, Sheila Jackson Lee and Ketanji Brown "affirmative action picks".
Calling the man who attacked Nancy Pelosi's husband with a hammer an "amazing patriot" and called on people to bail out the attacker.
"Submit to your husband, Taylor. You’re not in charge. "
"Happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact. It’s happening more and more."
"MLK was awful. He’s not a good person... We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s."
"Transgenderism and gender 'fluidity' are lies that hurt people and abuse kids." Transgender identity is a "throbbing middle finger to God."
Gun violence as a "cost" to having no gun control: "I think it’s worth it. I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational."
"The 'Great Replacement' is not a theory, it's a reality."
"The great replacement strategy, which is well underway every single day in our southern border, is a strategy to replace white rural America with something different."
"Islam is not compatible with Western civilization."
"Islam is the sword the left is using to slit the throat of America."

On and on. Man, such a moderate centrist who never espoused bigotry or promoted violence!

The one being incorrect is you. Archie's representation is quite accurate, in the US context.

Yes, a very "middle of the road" supporter of far-right Tommy Robinson (who has a 17% positivity ranking among Brits). The guy who said "When wolves get out of control, you shoot them. When gypsies take over public spaces, you deport them." The guy who described diversity as an "ideological inferno", a "religion" led by "high priests". The guy who was so radical and repressive at Basecamp that at one point 1/3rd of its employees all walked out en masse. Truly, a remarkable centrist of our times!

Not talking about VRAM or unified memory. Regular DRAM.

There's been a lot of advancement recently on how to best manage MoE expert swapping (FreeToken is just one example).

I said "route." It's pretty clear where you go if I answer that question. It's also irrelevant to the hypocrisy I was talking about.

But since you're so sincerely interested in what I think, here:

I don't think it's a good idea for anybody to be able to spend money to influence elections.

I also think it's a bad thing for countries to invade their neighbours, sponsor coups, rig voting and have official foreign propaganda organs.

Sure. There are lots of reasons you'd keep something like a nuke, or anything spinning up a big hunk of very expensive metal, running at a constant rate. It's also a pain in the ass to get the control room guys to put their doughnuts down. As opposed to something like solar where you just... do nothing.