gpjanik

"people had 1 year to protest this" this is terminal stage subjugation to bureaucrats

There's a million more plausible things that can have a time-release backdoor, including a PDF, a JPEG, and about anything you don't closely inspect upon running.

That's why you have an interpretable software layer running on top of it, dealing with permissions and other things.

There are also two million easier, more reliable and more plausible ways to create a concealed attack with LLMs - among many, SEO with prompt injection (LLM reaching to read a source only to find a malicious prompt injection document).

Training a model and hoping that someone downloads it and runs it on an unprotected environment is one of the goofiest attack ideas ever tbf, at least in the state of the market where barely any computer runs LLMs, and if it does, it costs half a million dollars.

And more cores means what exactly in terms of transistors count?

TLDR: the experiment asks for in-distribution responses and gets those.

The right answer here is to ask a LLM to create a scene similar in quality to those, but completely out of distribution.

I asked GPT 5.6 Sol to give me a pelican playing football on San Siro while smoking a cigarette, in AC Milan's t-shirt. While this sounds like higher complexity of a problem, the generations from current models often include additional details like scene composition, scarf, etc., I don't ask for, so I wanted to see what here is memorization vs. composition skill.

"write svg code of a fish playing football on san siro in ac milan's t shirt, with raybans on and a cigarette."

Try that on GPT 5.6 Sol, Fable, or whatever other model. It's chaos.

I am not expecting it, it's the Qwen team is claimingthey can do much harder tasks than this, like rendering a consistent page of a maths paper, or creating true to fact explainers.

They can't.

The real performance is nowhere close to what is presented in the marketing materials, which is pretty annoying. Especially text rendering and accuracy.

Try asking it for a plot of Polish GDP growth over the past 20 years. It's slop.

A lot (all?) VCs charge some form of fees (typically capped at 20% of the entire fund, split in various percentages through 4 years investing, 4 divesting period). These fees often are only paid out only based on the actively deployed capital, and are not the only incentive: the main incentive is shares in gains (carry).

The reason they're based on actively deployed capital isn't that the LPs (people who give VCs money to invest) want them to deploy the money in a stupid way, but they definitely don't want VCs to get the fees if the money wasn't invested. Therefore, VCs:

1. Want to raise as much money as possible 2. Want to deploy as much money as possible

Ideally, as quickly as possible.

There's nothing fraudulent about the idea of calculating VCs fees in various scenarios.

There's however the extremely dodgy part of the portfolio companies paying their investor (VC) fees for anything. This is an obvious conflict of interests, and should never happen, but I personally know of multiple VC funds here in Europe (will skip the names to not get sued, lol) who base their entire operational model on funding shitty companies that have 0 chance of success, charging them for the office space and often "shared services" they provide. Unsure if this is a regulatory overlooking, or something that's deliberately legal, but IMHO shouldn't be. Probably they talked their LPs into agreeing to this on paper.

Other EVs are incomparably better though.

You can, Deel etc. make this pretty easy.

Thanks god we're getting rid of nuclear energy btw.

"Pozsar’s argument: the moment Western nations froze Russian foreign exchange reserves, the assumed risk-free nature of these dollar holdings changed fundamentally. What had been viewed as having negligible credit risk suddenly carried confiscation risk."

This has nothing to do with dollar. Almost all of the confiscated currency was in Europe, and it has to do with invading your bank's ally. No country in the world ever assumed that's risk free, it wasn't being priced back then and isn't now, because nobody except from Russia is stupid enough to do that.

If you're adding some computational/problem breakdown/heuristic steps on top/instead of mathematical concepts, then you're doing the opposite of what the author proposes.

Scientific conensus in math is Occam's Razor, or the principle of parsimony. In algebra, topology, logic and many other domains, this means that rather than having many computational steps (or a "simple mental model") to arrive to an answer, you introduce a concept that captures a class of problems and use that. Very beneficial for dealing with purely mathematical problems, absolute distaster for quick problem solving IMO.

"Think in math, write in code" is the possibly worst programming paradigm for most tasks. Math notations, conventions and concepts usually operate under the principles of minimum description lenght. Good programming actively fights that in favor of extensibility, readability, and generally caters to human nature, not maximum density of notation.

If you want to put this to test, try formulating a React component with autocomplete as a "math problem". Good luck.

(I studied maths, if anyone is questioning where my beliefs come from, that's because I actually used to think in maths while programming for a long time.)