Quite appalling to open a "journalistic" report by ridiculising the people you report on:
> Not since Socrates complained that the written word might make people lazy about remembering things has there been such an outpouring of angst against a new technology in the world of academia.
It's also sort of a misleading gloss of what is going on in that dialogue, which, it is important to note _is in a book_ -- one of many that Plato wrote. Plato has Socrates recount a story (supposedly) from ancient Egypt in which an Egyptian god claims that books will make people forgetful. He never makes that claim himself, as a character, and certainly Plato didn't believe it, because he wrote lots of books before and after that dialogue. The general thrust of that section of the dialogue is that writing can be a useful tool for remembering, but _not_ sufficient for learning, which requires person to person interaction and dialogue.
We're not asking the model to simplify something, we're asking it to perform a task. Its subtle preferences show up as an overcomplicated path to the goal.
In some cases, there are also nuances that we don't pick up on. Here it's our preference for simplification that's showing up. We set the lossy compression factor higher than it does.
This is really impressive. Can you say a bit about the underlying process? I'm guessing this is post-training qantization? Isn't PTQ also resource-intensive? (Ie might not work on any machine)
Not sure that's correct. You're replacing a simple visual recognition problem with something similar to the halting problem (but maybe less fatalistic, depending on the formalism you're working against ie DOM vs js).
We don't follow "rules" in war anymore, according to "Secretary of War" Pete Hegseth. We show no quarter and take no prisoners, we pursue "maximum lethality, not tepid legality."
That's American policy now. The gloves are off, no holds barred, everything and everyone is on the table. So I guess we reap what we sow.
In terms of greenhouse it also depends on type of meat. Very acidental but europeans eat much less beef and eat pork/chicken instead. Chicken protein for example is in many cases better than cheese emission wise.
Also i don't think europeans don't use AC to save the planet. It's just expensive and it didn't use to be a problem.
Paris didn’t have air-conditioning because they sit at a latitude of 49 where in the past you might have a week maybe two of sustained high temperatures above 90°, since Paris sits at a latitude of 49 which is north of the United States-Canadian border all the way from Vancouver to the lake of the woods Minnesota.
Which is hardly air-conditioning country above latitude 49 although obviously climate change may change that, but there was no point having air-conditioning that far north in the past for two weeks of possible hot weather, a resident living in the American southwest who will never have a white Christmas ever and air conditioning was always a must.
As mentioned in other comments, what you call the past has been known for at least 30-40 years to be soon obsolete. They had enough time to prepare to this.
Not ethically better, though. At least in the US, 99% of all pork is factory-farmed, and in much of that the pigs live their whole lives in a stall too small to turn around in.
Pigs are as smart as dogs, and have personalities and emotions. I am absolutely a carnivore, but I still balk at eating meat raised through a system that just about tortures intelligent animals.
Anyways: I eat a lot more chicken and plant protein these days.
> Not since Socrates complained that the written word might make people lazy about remembering things has there been such an outpouring of angst against a new technology in the world of academia.
reply