sho_hn

35 ms·

751.
by sho_hn 2y ago
"India is on track to become the largest EV market by 2030, with rise in investment over the next 8-10 years." https://www.ibef.org/industry/electric-vehicle
752.
by sho_hn 2y ago
And then trains adopted reCAPTCHA.
753.
by sho_hn 2y ago
I think OpenAI really needs to rethink its product naming, especially now that they have a portfolio where there's no such clear hierarchy, but they have a place along different axis (speed, cost, reasoning, capabilities, etc). Your su
754.
by sho_hn 2y ago
I 3D printed some Zuse-style mechanical NAND gates last year, that was a lot of fun and makes for a great fidget toy: https://mero.ng/i/vMdqQYJG.jpg I've kind of given some thought of doing a higher-quality metal
755.
by sho_hn 2y ago
Ha, I know just the nerdy factoid to trot out to legitimize the frontpage placement. Brace: These little cat-human conversation pieces embedded within remind me enormously of the telepathic conversations in Alfred Bester's mighty genre
756.
by sho_hn 2y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM
757.
by sho_hn 2y ago
> Their CEO met with the premier the other day. While I agree with you overall ... have you heard of Mar a Largo?
758.
by sho_hn 2y ago
I wasn't arguing against you, rather extending your argument for further effect. Should've prefixed with "Indeed, ...", sorry.
759.
by sho_hn 2y ago
> How is this a "threat". Given how closely major US tech companies are now affiliated and partnered with the US Federal government, arguably the direct potential threat from them to US citizens may well be higher than from acr
760.
by sho_hn 2y ago
I'm wary of engaging in false equivalence, but people seem to have really forgotten the revelations of the Snowden episode.
761.
by sho_hn 2y ago
What I find amusing is that this closely mirrors the breakout moment OpenAI had with ChatGPT. They had been releasing models for quite some time before slapping the chatbot interface on it, and then it blew up within a few days. It's f
762.
by sho_hn 2y ago
Can't fault hackers for taking a look at a website that goes from "virtually unknown" to "extremely popular and headline news globally" practically over night. If nothing else, the probability of low-hanging fruit i
763.
by sho_hn 2y ago
Plus Volkswagen and Subaru in the last few weeks ...
764.
by sho_hn 2y ago
Can you explain at a technical level how you view this as necessary for the observed result?
765.
by sho_hn 2y ago
Most of the public is also unfamiliar with the term open source, and I'm not sure they did themselves any favors by picking one that invites far more questions and needs for explanation. In that sense, it may have accomplished little b
766.
by sho_hn 2y ago
> Language is parsimonious. A neologism will never win when a semantic shift will do. Agreed, but I think it's worth lamenting the danger in that. History is certainly full of transitory calamity and harm when semantic shifts detach
767.
by sho_hn 2y ago
We absolutely had a choice (D), in that no one was forced to call it "open source" at all, which was arguably done to unfaithfully communicate benefits that don't exist. This is the part that riles people up, and that further
768.
by sho_hn 2y ago
Let's call it underselling. :-) Mostly because I'm not sure anyone's independently done the math and we just have a single statement from the CEO. I do appreciate the algorithmic improvements, and the excellent attention-to-p
769.
by sho_hn 2y ago
Sure, I don't disagree. I fully understand the open-weights folks looking for a word to communicate their approach and its benefits, and I support them in doing so. It's just a shame they picked this one in - and that's givin
770.
by sho_hn 2y ago
Agreed, but the "connotations don't match" is mostly because the folks who chose to call it open source wanted the marketing benefits of doing so. Otherwise it'd match pretty well.
771.
by sho_hn 2y ago
I'm not arguing for open training data BTW, and the problem is exactly this sort of myopic focus on the concerns of the AI community and the benefits of open-washing marketing. Completely, fully breaking the meaning of the term "o
772.
by sho_hn 2y ago
Thanks for adding detail! My prompts have been very in-the-bubble-of-Qt I'd say, less so about mashing together Qt and something else, which I agree is a good real-world test case.
773.
by sho_hn 2y ago
> Open source just means you have access to the source code. Which you do. No, they also fail even that test. Neither Meta nor DeepSeek have released the source code of their training pipeline or anything like that. There's very lit
774.
by sho_hn 2y ago
Is this a local run of one of the smaller models and/or other-models-distilled-with-r1, or are you using their Chat interface? I've also compared o1 and (online-hosted) r1 on Qt/C++ code, being a KDE Plasma dev, and my impres
775.
by sho_hn 2y ago
I don't think we disagree at all, actually! What I'm saying is that in the media it's being portrayed as if DeepSeek did the same thing OpenAI did 27x cheaper, and the outsized market reaction is in large parts a response t
776.
by sho_hn 2y ago
Aye, this should be obvious even to non-technical folks. Much has been written about how LLMs regurgitate the data they were trained on. So if you're looking for data to train on, you can certainly extract it there. Plus of course for
777.
by sho_hn 2y ago
Thanks for reminding people of this. Open source means two things in spirit: (a) You have everything you need to be able to re-create something, and at any step of the process change it. (b) You have broad permissions how to put the result
778.
by sho_hn 2y ago
Oh, absolutely. I'm not defending OpenAI, I just care about accurate reporting. Even on HN - even in this thread - you see people who came away with the conclusion that DeepSeek did something while "cutting cost by 27x". But
779.
by sho_hn 2y ago
While I'm as amused as everyone else - I think it's technically accurate to point out that the "we trained it for $6 mio" narrative is contingent on the done investment by others.
780.
by sho_hn 2y ago
I watched "Dear Kelly" the other day, and while the movie isn't all that interesting, I couldn't help but feel like it was the absolute essence of a GenZ take on investigative journalism. I think that's what we got

More ›