boroboro4

The way you expose fraud is important. If you go vindictive against particular companies rather than administer policy it’s bad, as simple as that.

For production loads? No one will run DS without expert parallelism so it’s not important for model to fit on one gpu.

The issue is it’s cpu compute which is underutilized in gpu clusters anyway, so practically it’s not really 1/1000.

It's very unclear what's special in Rubin to be optimized for inference? I can see disaggregated bit (with having separate prefill and decoding nodes), but what else?

What does it mean it's better at nvfp4 training? What's different between training and inference to make this true?

It’s crazy something which basically changes the way US government works on a such a deep level is not even on a main page of hackernews.

The core insight there is to separate value semantics (no identity) from reference (itself) semantics (nullability). While this particular change can bring very limited amount of improvements it’s still does some - probably smaller to no object header + more guaranteed optimizations for variables on stack.

It’s when they land next part (nullability) it will shine fully - particularly on the intersection of not null and value. Alternatively if they introduce tearable semantics it will also shine - it would be possible to still optimize array of value classes, even if they are nullable (for example by having correspondent nullability mask).

So they are taking right step in a right direction. They are just trying to land this incrementally.

There is obvious proxy to the amount of training data - revenue. And I think anthropic is way ahead of them.

DOJ puts an accusation with clarifying text in semi private document? They don’t do this, they do much worse things (and get, rightly, much worse response).

This document isn’t great, but comparing it to Trump administration actions isn’t great either. As well as focusing on it rather than on a substance of the article in question (which is, about Garry Tan accusations in a first place).

Thank you for your comment though it made me go back and reread the linked text more critically.

I somewhat agree that the whole document is sloppy, but I also think this conversation overemphasizes what is wrong with it. It is not as if the document simply accuses the journalist and leaves it there; it actually elaborates on what it means by “violated HIPAA” in that context (and please don’t make me start comparing it with current administration behavior).

There is also a broader question of how to properly handle what are, quite honestly, likely bad-faith actors — the journalist in this case. Should the office simply ignore the smearing campaign and the lies? Maybe. But this is already an issue even before accounting for the significant amount of money — pushed by a very small number of people — being spent against the attorney’s office.

But this particular one does?..

This is what great reporting looks like: well-written, transparent, and rigorous. It’s sad to see how hatred toward progressives can distort people’s judgment.

It's unclear why the most probable next token given the context "please pick random number" won't be distributed uniformly across all the possible numbers (in the end it's totally possible for LLM return 10 logits of around same value for numbers 0..9 for example).

My bad.

However billionaires don’t own tiny part of US wealth, more like 5%-10%. And top 1% (and grandparent was talking about rich people) own 1/3 of US wealth.