lajawfe

Microsoft is the winner here. They will probably use Sam/Greg's technical know how to reproduce GPT4 internally, and also direct future research based on current OpenAI approaches which they are certainly aware of. This also shields Microsoft from being dependent on an external entity that they cannot control.

Anyways, Satya played very smart with the hands he was dealt, got what he needed.

The crypto bros switched to AI hype and are now hyping OpenAI/GPT4 hoping to pump MSFT/NVDA. In every HN conversation where someone mentions competing products, there are people talking it down and saying GPT4 is miles ahead, and in a tone to undermine the competition. I see a pattern and it is definitely not sincere.

I for one thought Karpathy would side with the core researchers and not the corpos. To me, this whole ordeal is a clash between profit motives of Sam vs Non Profit and Safety motives of OpenAI's original charter. I mean didn't HN hate when OpenAI changed their open nature and become completely closed and profit oriented? This could be the healing of the cancer that OpenAI brought to this field to make it closed as a whole.

Yes, I felt the same. In every piece, there was very little news but a lot of fluff to lead the public with opinions. Probably VCs saw their money burning and wanted Sam back at the helm to protect their asset.

That is just current narrative, we don't know the details right? There was immense pressure from investors/Microsoft and board had to have that meeting. But the board probably already made their mind and did not balk under pressure.

Yes, the media and the general conversation seems very one sided; and I do not see any basis to take a side. Sam being an overachiever, might actually be acting with maleficence and deceit. Why is no-one even considering that?

Everyone is just reiterating that board is inept and trying to undermine them. This does not sit right with me.

Is it possible to validate what I am running in browser is an unaltered version of what is there in Github?

Otherwise, I will have to trust the package author to not be malicious.

Another option might be to personally package and sideload the extension which I don't know how.

Can the FP32 and Tensor core modules compute at the same time, or are they an abstraction over the underlying silicon, and we can only utilize one at a time?

Here I give my analysis of what the best solution could be. Would like to know your thoughts too.

0. Lower rate from 30% to 15% -Apple still has monopoly, nothing changes.

1. Side loading apps: Not good! malicious apps can run amok, eg. $BIG_CORP$ will say - you will get 20$ credits if you sideload our app, and then surveil everything that is possible on the device. Here, we expect an average user to give all the permission that the app requests for.

2. allow secondary app stores: -not good as it depends on the quality of enforcement in secondary app store. For Apple, it is in their interest to maintain app quality in their appstore to maintain overall good user experience in their device, but motivations are not same for secondary app store. May allow malicious apps which deteriorate the user experience/privacy similar to 1. And there will be a state where you will have to install 10s of app store just to install specific programs which is also not ideal.

3. Allow secondary payment methods: -Average user will have to give up their payment info to everyone who asks for it. Most of them will not be trustworthy nor we can expect all of them to maintain good security standards for saving payment info.

The biggest culprit of all this drama is Apple does not allow secondary payment inside apps AND also, if you have secondary payment outside of app, they do not allow that price to be lower. There is no competition, thus Apple can get away with whatever it chooses to. Thus the monopoly.

4. SOLUTION:

a) charge a flat fee for reviewing/serving apps. If necessary, linearly increase it based on daily active users if they need more resource to support that app.

b) allow whitelisted secondary payment providers. Only whitelisting few payment methods which are trustable eg applepay, googlepay, paypal, stripe, etc will maintain security of payment data.

c) allow secondary payment price to be lower than Apple.

With this solution, there will be competition between payment providers which will drive the price down.

Here I give my analysis of what the best solution could be. Would like to know your thoughts too.

0. Lower rate from 30% to 15% -Apple still has monopoly, nothing changes.

1. Side loading apps: Not good! malicious apps can run amok, eg. $BIG_CORP$ will say - you will get 20$ credits if you sideload our app, and then surveil everything that is possible on the device. Here, we expect an average user to give all the permission that the app requests for.

2. allow secondary app stores: -not good as it depends on the quality of enforcement in secondary app store. For Apple, it is in their interest to maintain app quality in their appstore to maintain overall good user experience in their device, but motivations are not same for secondary app store. May allow malicious apps which deteriorate the user experience/privacy similar to 1. And there will be a state where you will have to install 10s of app store just to install specific programs which is also not ideal.

3. Allow secondary payment methods: -Average user will have to give up their payment info to everyone who asks for it. Most of them will not be trustworthy nor we can expect all of them to maintain good security standards for saving payment info.

The biggest culprit of all this drama is Apple does not allow secondary payment inside apps AND also, if you have secondary payment outside of app, they do not allow that price to be lower. There is no competition, thus Apple can get away with whatever it chooses to. Thus the monopoly.

4. SOLUTION:

a) charge a flat fee for reviewing/serving apps. If necessary, linearly increase it based on daily active users if they need more resource to support that app.

b) allow secondary payment providers (whitelisted only).

c) allow secondary payment price to be lower than Apple.

With this solution, there will be competition between payment providers which will drive the price down. Only whitelisting few payment methods which are trustable eg applepay, googlepay, paypal, stripe, etc will maintain security of payment data.

With that there is no credibility to the blog being actually generated by GPT-3, or at least being heavily cherry picked.

Well, Apple were at the right place at the right time. There is quite a bit of input from their side, but don't underplay the huge role of luck. And there is also network effect, once they had healthy numbers, people flock to them, so it is also due to network effects they are huge.

He talks about fixing Exceptions in c++, what is wrong with exceptions in c++ and how would you fix those? Go does not have exceptions, but I don't think Go's method of checking for error on every step and doing early returns is more elegant.