tarnith

Yeah, the modern landscape uses an IPO not as a fundraiser for growth or expansion.

It's a tool to payback original investors, and insiders using public excitement.

This can be seen very easily in the share of startups that the public gets any exposure to, during their growth phase. This has rapidly declined since those policies changed, and almost all growth is now only exposed to private lending markets. By the time a company IPOs now, it's the exit strategy, not the fuel of another growth multiple on the business.

You're assuming raising rates will drop demand for lending that's driving the inflation.

That generally works, in sane markets, when the majority of the cause driving the increased borrowing and by extension inflation, is price sensitive.

What it seems we're seeing right now, is a very large drive that's rather inelastic, and almost ignorant of the price of lending.

It will drop consumer demand, but if consumer demand isn't what's driving inflation, inflation will continue to rise, while also adding additional costs on every loan.

People can't stop buying housing/food/groceries. AI companies won't stop buying compute. It's been shown heavily how many companies will continue to borrow vast amounts even as the cost of lending has increased in bond markets. Why would raising the base lending rate cause them to stop?

Perhaps a very large rate hike, that would break their existing loans, but at that point you're talking about everyone being out of a job, and the wider economy crashing.

To me this looks like a policy decision is needed, much as happened in the 70s, not a rate increase, to resolve the drivers in the debt markets.

Could be wrong, time will tell.

Raising rates will have one main effect. Raising prices.

Most of the drivers right now of inflation are in-elastic demand. Raising the cost of borrowing, will not deter that spend.

What it will do, is actually drive up the cost of all business, and worsen employment simultaneously. You can typically see a rise in prices (inflation) following a rate hike. Even when it's needed to combat regular elastic demand side inflation, it takes time to have a positive effect. If the main driver of the inflation is inelastic, or rate insensitive as much of the driving force right now is, hiking rates will actually increase inflation.

The AI boom doesn't care what rate it has to pay, it will pay it, and keep driving things up.

What's needed is a significant policy shift, to make room in the markets again for things society needs financing for (ex. building homes, productive revenue generating businesses)

Hint: The new models are really good at burning tokens.

I've had to use it a bit for work, and it's been remarkable watching the degradation in performance with the default suggested current models (Opus 5 as a prime example) vs the models that got them huge attention a year ago (Opus 4.6)

If you give 4.6 a spec, or existing code to implement a feature in, it will ask some pointed questions if there's something unclear in the spec, and then produce a plan and move to implement it.

5 will freak out at even a basic task, ask itself if it's own assumptions or your instructions are correct, proceed to re-assess it's own plan, and it's instructions 3-4 times, and then maybe produce code after burning several hundred thousand tokens (and quite a bit of time) analyzing existing code and thoroughly sweeping it for irrelevant problems both to the task it was given and the spec it came up with.

It's quite bizarre to me how well advertised the benchmarks and anecdotes from people one shotting MVP browser games are, compared to the experience of everyone I know that's had to actually use it to accomplish even a relatively basic task.

Yeah, data layout/cache aware layouts are really key if you really want to unlock making something that ends up in a hot loop fast with SIMD.

Also, avoiding allocations or vtable lookups or a lot of indirection in the part of the code that's actually "hot" is really important. Vectors (in C++) at least aren't necessarily the best fit either, if you end up doing anything that can call an allocation unexpectedly.

Can you cite any information on this not being possible for the vast majority?

Or is it simply that the correct prompt hasn't been written for all possible cases?

I also fail to see the difference if logic/harnessing is added around a vector database that can output the complete corpus, but simply is instructed not to.

It very clearly is still compressing the information into the vector weights, and then recovering that information, thus the information is encoded.

Why is a vector database somehow completely different from maintaining a library of the text itself?

In what universe would a sane person allow any LLM or remote calling software access to their user folder with sensitive data in it?

I swear, people hear the word LLM and their brain resets when it comes to good software practices.

Did VMs suddenly stop existing? Kata containers? An RHEL box with SEL?

It's like there's a new technology and everyone suddenly decided to shutoff their brain when it comes to basic security.

Yeah, EA open sourced their STL, although now that C++23 is supported (aside from on MSVC? Still not flat_map there?!?) there is some replication in the STL.

Not uncommon for audio companies to also write their own containers and internal STL for ex. plugins as well.

Who cares if it crashes? The users.

We can all agree it's not medical systems, but audio DSP and game dev both end up rewriting a lot of STL stuff to suit their needs, and often using a restricted subset of modern C++ features for similar reasons.

That isn't some arbitrary choice, but pretty much where everyone continually ends up when solving real-time problems using C++. Whether those be games or not.

It depends what you want to get out of it, and what you think art itself really is.

If it's nothing but an end product, that needs to fit a specific aesthetic, with a specific sound, then I probably agree. AI is making that "pointless" in a way.

Almost everyone I know who's been an artist for years though, has come to a similar realization: What you set out to create, and what it turns into through the process of creating it are different things. The meaning, truly is found along the way.

You can always be better, there's always more to learn. Nothing is ever truly perfect, or "complete"

If you write harmony, there's always a different way it could be written, that might fit better, or be more interesting. If you do sound design, whether that's with getting different guitar tones, synth programming, unique recording techniques, there's always more to learn, or a different way to approach it.

If the only point is an end result, then AI can deliver a simulacra of that.

For everyone I know that loves music, or working with DAWs, the end result is an ever shifting target as you learn more, and understand music in a different way.

Ultimately, there are no shortcuts to making something new, because the practice of trying to make things is what results in what your art becomes. Tools and technology can shape what that thing ends up being, but they (traditionally) don't replace the process of creating it, and the feedback loop between who you are and the decisions you make along the way.

Stripping all of that out, and jumping to a "finished" product, is, well very product focused, but to me completely devoid of art or musicianship.

Some people seem to compare this to sampling, but anyone who's ever actually worked with sampling in a creative way will realize how hollow that comparison is. Almost all good sampling still requires a good deal of active feedback, between the person working with it and the way THEY hear what's going on.

Remove the person from that loop, replace the decisions with a general vague notion, and you end up with something that sounds "like" music, but that feedback loop is broken.

I see the same thing with all the AI UI design that's coming out. It's all generally quite competent, and exactly the same. Great for a business tool, where maybe the velocity and an acceptable MVP is the only point, but terrible for actual design and novel thought.

TL;dr: Why do it? Because you want to, and you think that with enough time engaging with something you'll change, just as it does, and the result isn't something you could have ever predicted when you started. It changes you, and that's the point. Just like learning an instrument, or learning to code. It's not purely about the produced result, and that very result fundamentally is changed by you actively engaging with whatever the medium is.

This works for simple apps, utilities, and demos/mvps. Not great for actual applications.

What about when you're embedding your GUI into an existing application? or for use on an already taxed system? (Audio plugins come to mind)

What if something is costly, that you need to compute dynamically, but not often, makes it into the frame? Do you separately now create a state flag for that one render object?

Yeah, it's a decent rubber duck.

As soon as it starts trying to write actual code or generate a bunch of files it's less than helpful very quickly.

Perhaps I haven't tried enough, but I'm entirely unsold on this for anything lower level.

I can definitely say I wouldn't know half of what I do and probably wouldn't have kept at it with writing GLSL and learning more about how GPUs really work without a lot of his freely shared knowledge over the years.

His articles on his website are very much worth a deep read too!

also how raytracing works with bounding volume hierarchies

and how occlusion culling worked with BSP trees in Quake if I remember correctly as well

Who wants to rent? I have money, give me a file for money.

DRM is laughable anyway, if you give me the data I have the file if I really want it.

Let me, the consumer, legally purchase a high res copy of media I can own. Why is this so hard?