Chance-Device

20 ms·

331.
by Chance-Device 2y ago
> Unfortunately complex systems cannot be fixed by simply going full forward in the opposite direction of a bad direction. Tell that to gradient descent. (Though the step sizes are a bit shorter than four years)
332.
by Chance-Device 2y ago
I don’t understand what’s so hard about it either. It seems like a pretty simple wrapper around infrastructure that Facebook already had.
333.
by Chance-Device 2y ago
He said he doesn’t care about fixing the team as a stand alone objective. Which is fine by me, because it’s probably a bullshit excuse for them not getting things done anyway.
334.
by Chance-Device 2y ago
Descartes. And it’s pretty clear that consciousness is the Noumenon, just the part of it that is us. So if you want to know what the ontology of matter is, congratulations, you’re it.
335.
by Chance-Device 2y ago
I’d add to the other replies by saying that this isn’t just pure inefficiency - it’s the ability to try things and get them wrong without dying. Often several things. If one of them works out, maybe they justify the rest - just like investi
336.
by Chance-Device 2y ago
When a company is successful, by which I mean it turns a healthy profit and eventually even enough to go public, it ends up sustaining a lot more employees doing a lot less than a smaller, leaner company that can’t afford inefficiency. That
337.
by Chance-Device 2y ago
The poster in this case used a metaphor where calling Meta a bully to the open source community was justified by likening the situation to someone being forcibly renamed “shithead”, presumably by a bully on the schoolyard. I’m asking if he
338.
by Chance-Device 2y ago
I don’t know if that would really help, I have a hard time imagining exactly what that model would be doing in practise. To be honest none of the stuff in the paper is very practical, you almost certainly do not want a diffusion model tryin
339.
by Chance-Device 2y ago
I agree with the other poster who said something to the effect that the model is open source and the released weights are, well, open weight. But the distinction is so trivial that I think it highlights the stupidity of this whole thing.
340.
by Chance-Device 2y ago
Meta is telling everyone to call you a shithead? That’s really the equivalent of what’s happening here?
341.
by Chance-Device 2y ago
That’s a nice sentence you’ve written there, but what exactly is it supposed to mean? Is it supposed to give the false impression that OpenAI and Meta’s actions have been equivalent with respect to releasing their models? And if it isn’t an
342.
by Chance-Device 2y ago
You can’t reproduce it from scratch. That’s about all. The fact that this is effectively impossible anyway without tens of millions in funding to pay for compute apparently doesn’t factor into it. I don’t think this is an issue about open s
343.
by Chance-Device 2y ago
You’re right obviously. In time none of these complaints are going to matter. Open weight is pragmatic and useful and will be accepted by basically everyone.
344.
by Chance-Device 2y ago
The gist of the article, which is roundly negative towards Meta and Mark Zuckerberg personally simply because he’s an easy target and they want to score some cheap points, is that they/he are actively causing harm by not releasing the
345.
by Chance-Device 2y ago
Maybe by bureaucrats in the OSI. Meta through the Llama models have done more for open source LLMs than just about anyone else, which the community recognises. The perfect is the enemy of the good, as usual.
346.
by Chance-Device 2y ago
I’m not sure how that would help vs just training the model with the conditionings described in the paper. I’m not very familiar with Gaussian splats models, but aren’t they just a way of constructing images using multiple superimposed par
347.
by Chance-Device 2y ago
I also thought this, but refer back to the paper, not the abstract: > A is the set of key presses and mouse movements… > …to condition on actions, we simply learn an embedding A_emb for each action So, it’s clear that in this model th