Comment Re:Just use a shittier model (Score 1) 31
Well, the performance of larger models is better, so there's a demand for larger models.
That's kind of orthogonal about whether or not there should be a demand.
The AI business is not succeeding if it needs to be amalgamated on a balance sheet with other ventures to hide that it's bleeding money.
That's not necessarily true in the slightest.
If it is, they won't be able to hide that- they're a publicly traded company. And lying about it is literally a federal crime.
More likely, they're talking about the 650 million MAU that Gemini has.
They claim that the AI search results only take 10x the power as a regular search result, which means the model that produces those is absolutely microscopically tiny.
That would make sense if its mostly just fed a context of search results and snippets and asked to summarize them.
Their SOTA model will take many hundred times more power than that.
taxes merely services government debt (that never gets paid off)'s interest
Incorrect. Somewhere around 19% of revenue is used to service Government debt. This is certainly an appreciable number, but you said, "taxes merely..." and that is simply wrong.
wrong, the covid vaccines didn't prevent infection or shedding of viruses
This is the root of why you're incorrect here and above.
The vaccine was, in fact, efficacious at stopping infection.
For breakthrough infections, it was not terrible efficacious at lowering viral load enough to tangibly affect transmission.
Current vaccines are far less efficacious than earlier ones against earlier strains, but even today's 30% is enough to materially affect the rate of spread.
Bullshit. My claim was "Cookies are not even mentioned in the GDPR". That claim is accurate. And that is the regulation part.
Incorrect. See linked PDF. See header.
The recitals are part of the regulation.
Oh, and: https://www.europarl.europa.eu... [europa.eu]
Correct. That should have been clear to you in what I said.
They are not binding directives- they are for the courts to determine the spirit of the law- i.e., they are integral to its application.
You literally don't understand your own justice system- that's fucking awesome. I had suspected, but now it's clear as day for everyone to see. I thank you for that.
vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don’t get sick
What they actually said:
our data from the CDC today suggests, you know, that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don’t get sick, and that it’s not just in the clinical trials but it’s also in real world data
Now, what do you think the relevant material difference in your misquote is?
I'll give you a hint: At the time the person said it, what they said was true, and the evidence backed it up.
More nuance was required (and provided) later as the picture became clearer, and as dipshits like you tried to play syntax games with the statements.
This is ignoring that you're misconstruing breakthrough infections with the efficacy of the vaccine in stopping infection altogether.
"There is no statute of limitations on stupidity." -- Randomly produced by a computer program called Markov3.