Kranar

Once again, just subject your slogan to some basic scrutiny. Your own clock is one second per second, which is a pure number, 1... that's not a speed.

So then you say take someone else's clock and compare it to your own clock, but that is still just a pure number. A speed is not a number, it has units like meters per second. A ratio of two clocks has no units at all, the units cancel. Whatever number you get, 3 or 9, it's just a factor by which two clocks disagree. You can absolutely interpret this ratio as a rate, but that doesn't make it a speed.

And a speed is exactly what the slogan needs, because the diagram/geometry it's using involves a right angled triangle where on one side of the triangle is your speed through space, and on the other side of the triangle is your speed through time, and the hypotenuse of the triangle is fixed at c (since every object travels through spacetime at this fixed speed).

For that to mean anything both sides have to be the same kind of quantity. You can't put meters per second on one side and a bare number on the other and call it a triangle. Nor can you patch it by multiplying the ratio by c to give it units, because the thing you get then grows as you speed up instead of shrinking. Either it has the right units and the wrong behavior, or the right behavior and no units at all. There's no version of this geometry that produces a consistent picture.

LinkedIn still caters to people who want more pro-corporate propaganda. Can check it out.

The more accurate statement is that all objects have the same speed in spacetime. Time is just one dimension of spacetime and objects do not all travel along that dimension with the same speed. For example, an object travelling through space at close to the speed of light will have a speed along the time dimension close to zero.

Having said that... this is mostly a slogan and makes for good Youtube videos, but it falls apart the moment you subject it to even the most basic scrutiny. For one... it doesn't make sense to talk about a speed through time since speed is literally a measure of change with respect to time, so a change in time with respect to time doesn't make any sense.

But as a slogan, it captures the idea that motion through space and the rate of your own clock are tightly linked together.

That study is from 2023 when the cost to produce 1000 images was 2.91 Wh per image. More recent numbers for Stable Diffusion's 2025 models that puts it at 1.3 Wh per image and that number continues to decrease.

For context that means a days worth of image generation emits about the same amount of carbon dioxide as a single transatlantic flight (New York to London). There are approximately 1500 transatlantic flights per day.

How did you decide to go from people whose jobs it is to optimize an LLM for a very specific benchmark that is mostly a fun curiosity at best... to employing the services of data annotation services for a rich set of icons and graphics?

You really have to go out of your way to completely misrepresent what's being claimed here in order to make such a wildly off-topic reply.

BTC Liquid Network is not decentralized and does not purport to be. It's a federated sidechain, that is... it's a blockchain that runs alongside the Bitcoin blockchain (using a two-way peg that lock real BTC on the Bitcoin blockchain and issues an equivalent amount of Liquid BTC on the Liquid sidechain) but blocks can only be added to the Liquid Network sidechain by some of the handpicked members of the federation.

What is this supposed to mean exactly? Do you think there are developers at OpenAI or Anthropic whose job is to train these state of the art models to draw pelicans riding bicycles? Like how exactly do you expect them to be doing that anyways? Hiring graphic artists to create SVGs of bike riding pelicans and feeding thousands of them into the model's training set?

You're misinterpreting these articles.

Autoregressive LLMs generate tokens one at a time, disputing this is just plain wrong. What is true, however, is that in order to generate the next token autoregressive LLMs produce internal/hidden state about future tokens far past the next token so that it's not like the entire machinery of the algorithm deprives itself of representing where the sentence/text is headed.

So "emits the next token" and "has no representation of anything beyond the next token" are two different claims. What autoregressive LLMs cost as a consequence of strictly outputting the next token is commitment. Once a token is output there's no going back. There's no revision or means of correction, and sometimes this can lead an LLM to route around its own earlier mistakes or simply produce false statements/hallucinations instead of going back and fixing them.

Brother they can't even release the announcement post cleanly without it constantly going down, they certainly wouldn't be able to release this new model without doing so in stages.

He said frontier models.

The well known papers are not what the talk is about though. The talk is titled "The root of the root..." specifically to go over the specific and incredibly/almost impossible to find citations those well known papers used and built upon to see what historical insights that might have been lost went into how those papers are now interpreted (or as the video argues, misinterpreted).

This ruling does not establish legal precedence. There is a second lawsuit that is still ongoing that will establish legal precedence. The article points out that the Trump administration is likely to wait for a ruling on that second lawsuit before deciding whether to appeal the ruling of this one.

Because it's very misleading. Time and space do not switch places past the event horizon. What happens is that the direction/path between an object and the singularity becomes a timelike dimension, and the direction that plays the role of time outside of the event horizon becomes a spacelike dimension. That is not the same as them swapping or that time becomes space and space becomes time not to mention that space has 3 dimensions and time has only 1 dimension so how could they even swap places.

Really what it means is that past the event horizon you can use the direction in space between you and the singularity as a way to measure time, specifically the amount of time left before you reach the singularity. It's not so mind blowing when you interpret it that way now is it? You can imagine many things in ordinary life that you use to measure time without claiming that time has literally swapped places with it. On a road trip, the number of kilometres to your exit tells you how long you have left, that's using space as a proxy for time... big deal. The notable difference between a road trip and a black hole is that on a road trip you could stop for a break, you could maybe take a detour, you could decide to go back home... and these would all break your use of space as a proxy for measuring time. Well with a blackhole you can't do any of those things, there is no going back, there is no detour, the relationship between the spatial direction towards the singularity and time is fixed and causal and there's nothing you can do about it.

The phrasing used is used almost certainly to evoke some kind of voodoo mind-blowing mystery that completely disappears when you get down to the more strict formalism.