danielmarkbruce

4 ms·

1.
by danielmarkbruce 10d ago
I might still be misunderstanding what you are saying, but bitnet also keeps high precision latent weights during training. The optimizer updates those, while the weights used in the forward pass are quantized to ternary values.
2.
by danielmarkbruce 10d ago
Never said equal, just that no one has much. It's just not that hard of a claim to understand. No need to twist oneself into a pretzel.
3.
by danielmarkbruce 10d ago
Or, someone who knows the books and hot takes on "systems thinking" are pop-science, and the actual good ideas have been around for a long time and taught in operations research, control theory etc.
4.
by danielmarkbruce 10d ago
You are conflating post training quantization and low bit training.
5.
by danielmarkbruce 10d ago
Hard to verify that your wardrobe is clean. Also hard to verify that the bad fuel is out without physical sensors. Many, many tasks are quite difficult to verify beyond "you know it when you see it". That doesn't work so well
6.
by danielmarkbruce 11d ago
Nope. It's perfectly consistent. No one has much power at all. No one is in charge, there is no greater power sitting above us all calling all (or even most) the shots. To use someone else's term, there is no cabal. You seem to co
7.
by danielmarkbruce 11d ago
Doesn't really even need to look like it. If you can verify rewards, RLVR will optimize really really well. If you can't... it's a struggle. There are probably fewer fields where you can verify rewards than one might hope.
8.
by danielmarkbruce 11d ago
Humans wear a lot of hats when the do work. They don't even realize how many. My experience with building real systems using LLMs is that you have to be very explicit about such hats and you don't realize how many are worn until y
9.
by danielmarkbruce 11d ago
"the billionaire class". Whether they meant all or most, those words certainly don't mean a handful.
10.
by danielmarkbruce 11d ago
I never said nobody hoped to be powerful, or increase the level of power they have. They just don't have much, and they can't/don't coordinate like some conspiracy theorists believe.
11.
by danielmarkbruce 11d ago
Just because no one is in charge, it doesn't mean favors disappear and it doesn't mean no one can throw a wrench in your system.
12.
by danielmarkbruce 11d ago
Maybe I'm overindexing on "they steer" and "effective strategy" - it still reads that this group has way more control and deliberate planning than they do. And, "implicit, uncoordinated conspiracy" is an o
13.
by danielmarkbruce 11d ago
Nobody is suggesting nobody or group cooperates on anything ever. This comment could go in the definition section of "strawman". My comment was in response to the idea that there is "a conspiracy of the elite". It's
14.
by danielmarkbruce 11d ago
Systems thinking as applied to human systems is about as rigorous as psychology.
15.
by danielmarkbruce 11d ago
No, nothing above them. No power. That's the point. In a couple years Trump will be gone and he'll be kowtowing to others and so on. There is no group in charge. No one is in charge.
16.
by danielmarkbruce 11d ago
You could make this statement about any group at all. And then once you realize people are in multiple groups, the whole thing devolves into chaos.
17.
by danielmarkbruce 11d ago
In the real world it's hard enough to get 5 people on the same page about anything. The idea that dozens/hundreds of people with billions of dollars who are in business against each other in many cases are secretly colluding with
18.
by danielmarkbruce 11d ago
Sounds clever, makes no sense.
19.
by danielmarkbruce 11d ago
The idea that all billionaires work together is hilarious. No real adult could possibly believe such nonsense.
20.
by danielmarkbruce 15d ago
and taken to it's extreme.... isn't the atmosphere secretly taking the vibrations in the air right outside out mouth and propagating them through a physical medium, making them available to anyone to capture?
21.
by danielmarkbruce 15d ago
Yeah, good catch. I was under the impression they did the proof in lean from the get go, but you are right. I guess the nature of the problem lent itself to the 10k agents. Ie, there isn't something general to take here.
22.
by danielmarkbruce 15d ago
You are hitting the google model through openrouter or directly?
23.
by danielmarkbruce 16d ago
There might not be a good abstraction. I've built a few harnesses for different types of workflows, and the details are so different I struggle to see a good abstraction. It's also not clear there should be - if you look at most c
24.
by danielmarkbruce 17d ago
Yup, and maybe the law will need to evolve. Fwiw, imo, you should assume everything you say (and write) is recorded going forward.
25.
by danielmarkbruce 17d ago
People generally don't think of keeping bits in memory for some short period of time as "recording".
26.
by danielmarkbruce 17d ago
From a legal perspective you can't record something in many us states. Using the microphone, keeping the bits in memory while you turn it into text, probably doesn't meet any reasonable definition of "record".
27.
by danielmarkbruce 17d ago
You've always been allowed to transcribe (ie, write) out a conversation. Recording is a different thing. A person can always claim, easily and believably, that the transcription is made up. It's just text.
28.
by danielmarkbruce 17d ago
Agree, it is effectively understanding human biology - which we suck at, have little data on, have few good models for. So, it doesn't appear there is any way to avoid the clinical trial process. And it won't speed up, and it won&
29.
by danielmarkbruce 18d ago
It's closer to strategizing once you've run a model through RL. It's optimized to take steps which will lead it to a good outcome down the road.
30.
by danielmarkbruce 18d ago
Well, amazon and apple haven't done great either. One might reasonably claim they weren't as well placed as goog or msft, but it might just be "big company can't do genuinely new thing".

More ›