tw1984

15 ms·

241.
by tw1984 2y ago
> The reality is that DeepSeek is a full company, that was funded as a spin-off from the original business (a hedge fund that used its large GPU stockpile to pick stocks via ML). The company DeepSeek is owned by the hedge fund CEO not th
242.
by tw1984 2y ago
> SpaceX consumed enormous amounts of cash No, spacex projects are extremely $ efficient. The total project cost of starship is like 20% of the SLS. > he's competing against all the biggest companies in the world in this race. No
243.
by tw1984 2y ago
Talent is not something you can just freely pick up from your local Walmart.
244.
by tw1984 2y ago
> The numbers being thrown around are suspect, the paper they published didn't reveal the costs of all models nor the R&D cost it took to develop them. did any lab release such figure? will be interesting to see.
245.
by tw1984 2y ago
Karpathy believes that this is at o1-pro level[1]. This again proves that OpenAI simply has no tech moat whatsoever. Elon's $97 billion offer for OpenAI last week was reasonable given that xAI already have something just a few months b
246.
by tw1984 2y ago
trump won big among young people during the election, the biggest win in republican history, he believes that it has everything to do with his popularity on tiktok. with elon controlling x, he needs a social media platform under his control
247.
by tw1984 2y ago
[flagged]
248.
by tw1984 2y ago
for those interested, below is the transcript of JD Vance's remark on the summit. https://gist.github.com/lmmx/b373b9819318d014adfdc32182ab17f...
249.
by tw1984 2y ago
> The issue is that they claim that you don't need an extensive amount of data to do efficient reasoning. they claim that efficient reasoning can be achieve by applying a small set of SFT samples. how that sample set is collected&#x
250.
by tw1984 2y ago
With really high quality samples, the reasoning ability of a well trained LLM can be activated using very small amount of SFT samples, this is what I learned from the paper. It is an interesting finding but not practical through, as you nee
251.
by tw1984 2y ago
I don't care as I don't use rust. I learned and played with it, it is just horrible. I use Python, Golang and C almost everyday for living and fun! Just hate the fact that quite often people get judged or even treated differently
252.
by tw1984 2y ago
> because this wrapper not lives in specific driver and depends on DMA subsystem internal API. if multiple rust based drivers all need to have DMA support, what should they do? each come up with their own little magic? > And this caus
253.
by tw1984 2y ago
again, as a user, I don't care. I use linux & visiting HN because of tech, not because of any politics. Martin's patch should not be delayed or rejected because of the rust language, it is an approved language. If some maintai
254.
by tw1984 2y ago
no feedback whatsoever for 2 months - just because it was 17k lines - and you are blindly defending it? if you don't know what you are posting & talking about, then maybe you shouldn't. if someone is willing to put in the effo
255.
by tw1984 2y ago
> at least to C developers. so it is not about technical merits, but just some language religious thing? nice.
256.
by tw1984 2y ago
care to explain why the following patch that touches nothing got rejected? rust/bindings/bindings_helper.h | 1 + rust/kernel/dma.rs | 271 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ rust/kernel/lib.rs
257.
by tw1984 2y ago
wait a second, I thought you are the one labelling people as "toxic" when completely ignoring the context that really matters.
258.
by tw1984 2y ago
please stop spreading such highly misleading nonsense. look at what is black and white. blindly defending such toxic people is not doing linux any good.
259.
by tw1984 2y ago
> reproduce the OpenAI capabilities from scratch who cares. even if the claim is true, does that make the open source model less attractive? in fact, it implies that there is no moat in this game. openai can no longer maintain its stupid
260.
by tw1984 2y ago
> The US should only ban DeepSeek (and other Chinese companies) from accessing US frontier models. The US should only ban DeepSeek (and other Chinese companies) from accessing US frontier models designed and trained by Chinese Americans.
261.
by tw1984 2y ago
the biggest mistake was made 20 years by allowing China to join the WTO. everything is already too late.
262.
by tw1984 2y ago
> The Chinese Communist party very much sees itself in a global rivalry over "new productive forces". interestingly, that actually makes the CCP the largest political party pursuing state capitalism. there won't be any com
263.
by tw1984 2y ago
#1 is stealing from all average joes ever lived on earth #2 is taking advantages from closedAI. they are indeed different
264.
by tw1984 2y ago
Below is the response from DeepSeek itself. "Ah yes, because comparing AI’s transformative impact to VR’s niche flops or dismissing cloud (now the backbone of modern tech) proves you’ve got the insight of a dial-up modem. Stay salty an
265.
by tw1984 2y ago
$14 billion generates almost half billion $ interests each year with federal deposit insurance, that alone is like 17-18x of $30m. :) those "decision makers" (aka human sized random number generators) in Microsoft have a lot of st
266.
by tw1984 2y ago
`git blame` comes in handy
267.
by tw1984 2y ago
> Why would the CIA get involved in the financial value of NVidia? the AI race between China and the US is going to shape the future of our generation. CIA has all the motivations to just eliminate all those core Chinese members as they
268.
by tw1984 2y ago
Microsoft paid $14 billion so they have exclusive hosting accesses to those OpenAI models. Too bad that a free and open weight model appeared online that matches the performance of what they paid $14 billion for.
269.
by tw1984 2y ago
I spent quality time thinking about this last night, there is one and only one reasonable motivation that would possibly stop them from doing so - to avoid being killed by the CIA The whole thing is no longer a startup being disruptive
270.
by tw1984 2y ago
> Unlike crypto there is no mathematical lower bound for computation this is what I feel, but is there any scientific proof on that?

More ›