coder543

36 ms·

661.
by coder543 3y ago
From the article: “Oxygen-28 might prompt physicists to revamp theories of how atomic nuclei are structured.” If the theories are incomplete or wrong, how could we accurately simulate things we don’t yet understand? It doesn’t matter how po
662.
by coder543 3y ago
Presumably, it has to MitM all traffic going to/from the WAN in order to MitM YouTube traffic. Encrypted Client Hello / Secure SNI / Encrypted SNI prevents the hostname for each connection from leaking in plaintext. DNS-over-
663.
by coder543 3y ago
> I think most people with gigabit internet at home never max out their pipe with a single connection, not even close. I don't agree, but for argument's sake, where do you draw the line? What is acceptable? 10Mbps? Each person
664.
by coder543 3y ago
> The entire whole scenario is hypothetical!!! I do not agree at all. Some people may actually want to use the technique detailed in the article. Most people do not have a powerful, enterprise-grade router they can run software on, so
665.
by coder543 3y ago
> I would estimate significantly less than 1ms of that time would be spent parsing and encoding the protobuf message. It would just be nice to see a representative benchmark on a Raspberry Pi 4. I generally agree with you on that point,
666.
by coder543 3y ago
> If you've got a Raspberry Pi 4 as your proxy, aren't you already struggling to pump more than 600Mbps over your network? The Pi 4 is capable of a full gigabit connection, unlike previous Raspberry Pis. So, no, not fundamental
667.
by coder543 3y ago
But... can you do it at 1Gbps on a single core of a Raspberry Pi? You have to both parse and then reencode it. 1000Mbps = 125MBps. 125MBps/(2MB/message) = 62 messages per second. 62 messages per second means that you have 16ms to
668.
by coder543 3y ago
> That's per core, of which it has four. Which only matters for multiple concurrent connections... a single download would still be a sequential task on a single core at 300Mb/s, which I would find to be an unacceptable bottlen
669.
by coder543 3y ago
I think you're underestimating the CPU requirements. If a weak Android phone is only able to decode 50Mb/s of TLS traffic, that's not a big problem in practice. It's a slow phone, usually connected to slow networks. On
670.
by coder543 3y ago
Am I the only one seeing some very weird kerning in the text on that site? Switching to my browser's reader mode makes the site more legible for me.
671.
by coder543 3y ago
> Also, the best cleanroom technology in the world goes to LCD manufacturing facilities Better than cutting edge semiconductor fabs? Why would LCDs need such cleanroom facilities?
672.
by coder543 3y ago
One additional caveat worth considering... a lot of LLM computation is often memory bandwidth bound. The 4060 Ti is infamous for how deeply Nvidia cut the memory system. The 3060 Ti had a 256-bit bus that was capable of 448GB/s of memo
673.
by coder543 3y ago
iPad Pro comes in 8GB and 16GB variants. Scroll down to "Chip": https://www.apple.com/ipad-pro/specs/
674.
by coder543 3y ago
I just don’t understand how anyone is making practical use of local code completion models. Is there a VS Code extension that I’ve been unable to find? HuggingFace released one that is meant to use their service for inference, not your loca
675.
by coder543 3y ago
Yes, that's not a response to my comment. No one who has been using any model for just the past 30 minutes would say that it has "pretty much replaced Google/SO" for them, unless they were being facetious.
676.
by coder543 3y ago
I wish that Meta would release models like SeamlessM4T[0] under the same license as llama2, or an even better one. I don't understand the rationale for keeping it under a completely non-commercial license, but I agree that is better th
677.
by coder543 3y ago
You've already downloaded and thoroughly tested the 7B parameter model of "code llama"? I'm skeptical.
678.
by coder543 3y ago
In most conversations, TypeScript generally seems to be considered a fairly "modern" language. TypeScript offers a variety of rather advanced type system features, and AssemblyScript is based on it, so by extension, AssemblyScri
679.
by coder543 3y ago
I think the Beam website should be a lot clearer about how things work[0], but I think Beam is offering to bill you for your actual usage, in a serverless fashion. So, unless you're continuously running computations for the entire mo
680.
by coder543 3y ago
Yes, any model that you can run on your computer. It changes the way that the tokens are sampled from the LLM, and OpenAI does not give you deep enough access into the pipeline to affect that.
681.
by coder543 3y ago
> Btw, I was able to have ChatGPT 3.5 give this roundabout response about it That wasn’t a response to the user asking a question about who won. You asked it to write a story. It wrote a story. It didn’t really do anything wrong there. C
682.
by coder543 3y ago
Given how this works, I don’t think that is possible unless OpenAI implements it themselves.
683.
by coder543 3y ago
Supervised Fine Tuning, I believe.
684.
by coder543 3y ago
> I believe GPT-4 is not available to everyone yet I still don't have access, except through the regular ChatGPT interface, which is mildly annoying. It would be interesting to experiment with the API.
685.
by coder543 3y ago
> at least from my experience of GPT3.5 (not used 4 much). And 4 is tremendously better than 3.5, in my own experience. Not perfect, but actually useful.
686.
by coder543 3y ago
Maybe... but then if I want to use something better, I have to figure out how by myself. I said "at least one example", not "please change all the examples to llama2." I agree with your general point. It would be nice
687.
by coder543 3y ago
As a more general comment, the repo README provides examples that all use gpt2. It would be nice to see at least one example that invokes llama2, since I feel like that would make sure the reader knows that this library can use models that
688.
by coder543 3y ago
It’s something OpenAI should really implement themselves. Implementing it from the client side will mean sending the same request over and over until you get a syntactically correct answer, which is going to be much slower and likely to cos
689.
by coder543 3y ago
It is possible… ChatGPT4 says that all the time. It’s just not guaranteed that an LLM will recognize that it doesn’t know a particular answer every time. I had even already mentioned in the comment you’re replying to that you should lea
690.
by coder543 3y ago
This analogy falls apart because the spellchecker is separate from the author, and doesn’t know what the author intended. Here, the LLM is still dictating the token probabilities, so the content will be as correct as the LLM can make it, gi

More ›