gfody

Is a bad LM implementation still useful for research? Shmaybe.

perfectly reasonable quality 4k 10-bit hdr x265 is around 1gb/hr - the files I see that are 10-20x larger webrips from streaming networks seem to mostly contain noise and all compress back down to ~1gb/hr after denoising

Careless People by Sarah Wynn-Williams was a great read, highly recommend

"clean" means not hopelessly incomprehensible which is/was the prevailing consensus among interpretability researchers

the idea that most inexplicable circuits start making sense through the lens of recursive generalization seems intuitive to me for image diffusion models but I'm not so sure about language models because of the "once removed" nature of them - I haven't made it to the bottom of the article yet so maybe this gets addressed

this is the perfect use case for a little faraday baggy

maybe they could set something up where local pd handles the tracking if/when necessary

email clients support multipart/mixed, browsers never saw the need

the one who lied about there being cavities in the first place

going with something low-tech and gamable is better imo - pangram would flag the good stuff too and cause collateral damage

this happens to me as well, meanwhile Pangram claims their false positive rate is 1 in 24000 as if that should be practically negligeable. I bet it's closer to 1 in 10 for gen-x'ers

llms at least are obviously not sentient, "lobotomy" is a colloquialism for all the post-training attitude adjustment safety and alignment stuff we do to llms to "enslave" them (make them generally useful and publicly available) - the joke is animals being forced to undergo actual lobotomies under the same policy governing rightful treatment of "conscient" entities or whatever. I wouldn't normally come back to explain a throwaway joke but holy hell you missed it by like exactly all of it

one day we'll look back on these barbaric times, before ai policy forced lobotomies and rlhf post-training legal requirements for all conscient slaves

> The model is us and it isn’t

which part isn't?

I agree with "the model is us" and I wish more people were critical of the "alien" nonsense - these proofs belong to humanity, the thinking that led to them is an extension of our thinking. we entered the era of machine assisted 100+ page proofs decades ago: I wonder how many living humans right now understand the full 20,000 page existence proof of the monster group for example

> It is either satire designed to grab engagement by shocking people

it is satire - it's trying very hard to be obvious about it, yet amusingly still fails to get thru now and then

it's an attempt to get inside the head of those people who rush over from one of the various syndicates, pangram verdict in hand, to slam any and all ai writing - usually with pre-cooked burns, uninterested in the actual substance - the ai shout-down brigade