If I'm understanding the thread correctly, I have a git alias to `git commit --amend --no-edit`, for exactly this workflow. When I'm hacking on something locally and want to just keep amending a commit. I only ever do this if it's HEAD though.
A lot of people are making the mistake of noticing that local models have been 12-24 months behind SotA ones for a good portion of the last couple years, and then drawing a dotted line assuming that continues to hold.
It simply.. doesn't. The SotA models are enormous now, and there's no free lunch on compression/quantization here.
Opus 4.6 capabilities are not coming to your (even 64-128gb) laptop or phone in the popular architecture that current LLMs use.
Now, that doesn't mean that a much narrower-scoped model with very impressive results can't be delivered. But that narrower model won't have the same breadth of knowledge, and TBD if it's possible to get the quality/outcomes seen with these models without that broad "world" knowledge.
It also doesn't preclude a new architecture or other breakthrough. I'm simply stating it doesn't happen with the current way of building these.
edit: forgot to mention the notion of ASIC-style models on a chip. I haven't been following this closely, but last I saw the power requirements are too steep for a mobile device.
Yeah, but that's the current state of the art after decades of aggressive optimizations, there's no foreseeable future where we'll ever be able to cram several orders of magnitude more ram into a phone.
We already cram several orders of magnitude more flash storage into phone than RAM (e.g. my phone has 16 GB RAM but 1 TB storage); even now, with some smart coding, if you don't need all that data at the same time for random access at sub millisecond speed, it's hard to tell the difference.
The gap between SOTA models and open / local models continues to diminish as SOTA is seeing diminishing returns on scaling (and that seems to be the main way they are "improving"), whereas local models are making real jumps. I'm actually more optimistic local models will catch up completely than I am SOTA will be taking any great leaps forward.
Would the model even need that breath of knowledge? Humans just look things up in books or on Wikipedia, which you can store on a plain old HDD, not VRAM. All books ever written fit into about 60TB if you OCR them, and the useful information in them probably in a lot less, that's well within the range of consumer technology.
Pretty sure there’s at least a couple orders of magnitude in purely algorithmic areas of LLM inference; maybe training, too, though I’m less confident here. Rationale: meat computers run on 20W, though pretraining took a billion years or so.
No, there's approximately just as much technical and interesting content on Twitter as there used to be. Lots of people left, lots of different people joined.
It's just that this content is outnumbered some 100,000:1 now instead of the mere 1000:1 it used to be (ratios made up, but directionally correct.)
From my point of view, HN is trending in that same direction. It's just that the ratios aren't nearly as dramatic.
It's the ratio that counts the most. You seem to be implying TwiX is getting an increasingly bad ratio. That would imply, to me, an increasingly limited lifespan for encouraging quality.
I would mind far less if the political comments were only the political posts. I just avoid clicking into those.
It's when I click into an interesting topic, and it's steered into being an offtopic retread of every other thread about US politics. The upvote/downvote system simply no longer works to squelch it as it once did, because there are enough people here who believe "everything is political" and therefore it's always "on-topic".
That is their prerogative, but it has dramatically lessened my enjoyment and engagement on this platform in the last 5 years. And it's gone into overdrive in the last 6 months.
HN is my top candidate for a solution like this, too. Because there's a ton of high quality content here, increasingly buried beneath a small number of sentiments and topics I don't care to see rehashed constantly.
I'd like to see it, too, but for the opposite[1] reason: Others can use this curation (which only affects their own view of HN) instead of flagging (which affects my view and everyone else's too).
I use the flag functionality as per the guidelines:
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
> If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it. Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead. If you flag, please don't also comment that you did.
Flagging is a way to shape what types of content takes up the finite amount of attention available on HN. If everyone used it (only) in the way the guidelines ask you to, the front page would look very different on a given day.
You should figure out how to fix the way it appears in the MAS listing, it's going to cost you a lot of downloads among a savvy audience. I always check that IAP section on free apps before I bother downloading.
I get why the previous subscription option would still appear, but I'm not sure why the one-time option wouldn't be appearing. Maybe not enough transactions on it yet?
I may be misremembering a drunken conversation with a developer but IIRC the root cause was choice of cross-platform APIs available in early 2010s & the JSON file was tiny when introduced.
The problem was not in delivering JSON. There were better ways, but it was good enough.
The failure is that loading times had been a complaint for years, and nobody involved lifted a finger. It would be impossible to use the platform without feeling the pain.
The software was released on 7 platforms, not counting multiple Windows versions. I don't know the risks or what platforms changes impact today or the test effort involved. I expect "it's still functioning as expected" was the default.
That was the state of play in 2015 as well. In the absence of a claim from the group otherwise, I wouldn't be surprised if they simply couldn't get it to stop (on a technical level.)
Way back when, it was a pretty common screwup to accidentally saturate the nodes you were packeting from. So then your C&C couldn't get them to respond, either. Oops.
Game developers sometimes make the “randomness” favor the player, because of how we perceive randomness and chance.
For example in Sid Meier’s Memoir, this is mentioned.
Quoting from a review of said book:
> People hate randomness: To placate people's busted sense of randomness and overdeveloped sense of fairness, Civ Revolutions had to implement some interesting decisions: any 3:1 battle in favor of human became a guaranteed win. Too many randomly bad outcomes in a row were mitigated.
The original link being discussed in that thread is 404 now, but archived copies of the original link exist such as for example https://archive.is/8eVqt
I used to get so many comments about how the computer opponent in a tile-based board game of mine cheats and got all the high numbers while they always got low numbers, and I'd be like "that's mathematically impossible. I divide the number of spaces on the board in half, generate a deck of tiles to go into a 'bag', and then give a copy of those same tiles to the other player.
So over the course of the game you'll get the exact same tiles, just in a different random order.
Now to be fair, I didn't make that clear to the player that's what was happening, they were just seeing numbers come up, but it was still amazing to see how they perceived themselves as getting lower numbers overall compared to the opponent all the time.
Meanwhile on the base game difficulty I was beating the computer opponent pretty much every game because it had such basic A.I. where it was placing its tiles almost totally at random (basically I built an array of all possible moves where it would increase its score, and it would pick one at random from all those possibilities, not the best possibility out of those).
My Dad used to play a lot of online poker, and he used to complain when other players got lucky with their hands, be like 'I know the chances are like 5% of them getting that! They shouldn't have gotten that!' and it always reminded me of those people.
Games like Battle for Wesnoth which have it implemented right, you’ll look at a 90-10 scenario with 2 attacks and end up with the 1% scenario. Enough to make a man rage. I have degrees in Mathematics, I am aware of statistics, and all that. And yet when I played that game I would still have an instant “wait what, that’s super unlikely” before I had to mentally control for the fact that so many battles happen in a single map.
Was good because it identified a personal mental flaw.
I worked on a game where we added a "fairness" factor to randomness. If you were unlucky in one battle, you were lucky in the next, and vice versa. Mathematically you ended up completely fair. (The game designer hated it, though, and it wasn't shipped like that)
The better option would be to just increase the flat odds. DQM: The Dark Prince is brutal with it's odds, but fair. A 45% chance is 45%.
In games like Civ/EU/Stellaris/Sins/etc It makes sense that a 3:1 battle wouldn't scale linearly, especially if you have higher morale/tech/etc. Bullets have a miss ratio, 3x as many bullets at the same target narrows that gap and gives the larger side an advantage at more quickly destroying the other side. So just give it an oversized ratio to scale the base (1:1) odds at.
That keeps "losing" realistic...a once in an occasion happenstance of luck/bad tactics/etc but also a generally very favorable and reliable outcome for your side.
reply