Glib, but it wont be cost effective at that small scale

So are we arguing that the article that talks about them using ASICs is just making that up then? Otherwise what's the fourth option?

Who says CERN needs to be cost effective?

Thats a bit far. Relu does check x>0 but thats just one non-linearity in the linear/non-linear sandwich that makes up universal function approximator theorem. Its more conplex than just x>0

The relu/if-then-else is in fact centrally important as it enables computations with complex control flow (or more exactly, conditional signal flow or gating) schemes (particularly as you add more layers).

Multiply-accumulate, then clamp negative values to zero. Every even-numbered variable is a weighted sum plus a bias (an affine transformation), and every odd-numbered variable is the ReLU gate (max(0, x)). Layer 2 feeds on the ReLU outputs of layer 1, and the final output is a plain linear combination of the last ReLU outputs

    // inputs: u, v
    // --- hidden layer 1 (3 neurons) ---
    let v0  = 0.616*u + 0.291*v - 0.135
    let v1  = if 0 > v0 then 0 else v0
    let v2  = -0.482*u + 0.735*v + 0.044
    let v3  = if 0 > v2 then 0 else v2
    let v4  = 0.261*u - 0.553*v + 0.310
    let v5  = if 0 > v4 then 0 else v4
    // --- hidden layer 2 (2 neurons) ---
    let v6  = 0.410*v1 - 0.378*v3 + 0.528*v5 + 0.091
    let v7  = if 0 > v6 then 0 else v6
    let v8  = -0.194*v1 + 0.617*v3 - 0.291*v5 - 0.058
    let v9  = if 0 > v8 then 0 else v8
    // --- output layer (binary classification) ---
    let v10 = 0.739*v7 - 0.415*v9 + 0.022
    // sigmoid squashing v10 into the range (0, 1)
    let out = 1 / (1 + exp(-v10))

I feel like this is a somewhat bad faith argument becuase its shifting blame onto the user.

Its addicting the same way gambling is addicting. Its ridiculous to say that people who get addicted to it are not neurotypical.

Yeah. I think we should let the free market decide if our children do heroin too. Whatever happens, at least it'll be economically efficient

Sure but the possession itself of that data without a warrant violates the spirit of the 4th ammendment. So its time that loophole was closed so its not a an issue anyway

I actually would be fine with the authorities having the ability to process this data to solve crime and stuff, but only as long as there were checks and balances and it was happening according to the constitution, which it is not right now

> possession itself of that data without a warrant violates the spirit of the 4th ammendment

Does it? An 18th-century tavern owner could keep tabs on the comings and goings of their customers. It would have just prompted pushback when they started sharing that list.

Possession isn’t the problem. Sharing is.

No, the bar owner has a right know who's in his bar.

The local or federal government do not have the right, or need to know the whereabouts of the average law abiding citizen. There is no "free" information, all information has a cost, whether it be acquisition or storage. Currently the people are taxed to oppress themselves. There is no choice not to be taxed, there is no consent.

You've said shat I meant to say more eloquently. That's my point. The bar owner can possess the information about their own bar without problem. The issue is when they share it with others, voluntarily or under coercion.

No you still don't get it, the bar owner can share the information with whoever he likes.

The government, does not own the country, it's not "their bar".

> The government, does not own the country, it's not "their bar"

Never mentioned the government. If I shop at a store and the store owner starts selling my information to everyone under the sun, I'm going to keep an eye out for alternatives. I don't mind them collating it. I do when they share it.

I feel like the example you want is a Video store owner could store a list of what movies congressmen rented.

Which was trivially not covered by the 4th amendment [1].

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Privacy_Protection_Act

Government is that institution in our society which possesses a monopoly on violence and should be held to a higher standard than a tavern keeper.

In this context, I believe the tavern is a metaphor for Facebook etc., and hence it's not one tavern but a business which tried to own all taverns, pubs, and restaurants, who has made the beer (and food) free because juicy gossip sells more opportunities for ad revenue, and all the governments want in on that.

Also, "monopoly on violence" is deputised in a lot of ways, including "Stand Your Ground" laws, and "Castle doctrine" (which may or may not include a workplace), and what's allowed for trespass and if trespass includes not leaving when told to.

(And even when it's more of a first amendment issue than a fourth, there's also occasional news stories about people getting sued for leaving negative reviews of a business because the business snuck in a no-disparagement clause into the terms and conditions).

There is a big difference between a tavern owner keeping tabs on the comings and goings of their customers and the government having 24/7 precise location monitoring on everyone in the entire country.

One does not violate the 4th and the other does (though they do it anyway).

I think that comment specifically meant possession by the government.

The tavern owner is not the government. The bill of rights is about restricting the powers of the government, not of tavern owners.

Really?

This is really interesting. At this point you seem to be modelling real human memory

In my opinion, this should happen inside the LLM dorectly. Trying to scaffold it on top of the next token predictor isnt going to be fruitful enough. It wont get us the robot butlers we need.

But obviously thays really hard. That needs proper ML research, not primpt engineering

Personally, I think the mechanics of memory can be universal, but the "memory structure" needs to be customized by each user individually. What gets memorized and how should be tied directly to the types of tasks being solved and the specific traits of the user.

Big corporations can only really build a "giant bucket" and dump everything into it. BUT what needs to be remembered in a conversation with a housewife vs. a programmer vs. a tourist are completely different things.

True usability will inevitably come down to personalized, purpose-driven memory. Big tech companies either have to categorize all possible tasks into a massive list and build a specific memory structure for each one, or just rely on "randomness" and "chaos".

Building the underlying mechanics but handing the "control panel" over to the user—now that would be killer.

You're probably right long term. If LLMs eventually handle memory natively with confidence and decay built in, scaffolding like this becomes unnecessary. But right now they don't, and the gap between "stores everything flat" and "models you with any epistemological rigor" is pretty wide. This is a patch for the meantime.

The other thing is that even if the model handles memory internally, you probably still want the beliefs to be inspectable and editable by the user. A hidden internal model of who you are is exactly the problem I was trying to solve. Transparency might need to stay in the scaffold layer regardless.

It would legitimately be hilarious though if the result of this conflict was iran being the one to enact regime change. In terms of the global order

Heh. Trump asks the oracle at Delphi what will happen if he launches the war.

“The war will surely achieve regime change,” replies the oracle.

“Great, let’s go,” says Trump, who never read Herodotus.

> iran's dickhead move...

Remind me again, which country started this whole mess?

> what choice do the gulf nations, or even all the asian+european (strait users) nations have?

They can go "yeah, you know, the US has been less than reliable as an ally recently, what with absurd tariffs, saber rattling around greenland, belitteling NATO, etc., and they seem unwilling to change, so we're just gonna pay the piper, and get oil, and make arrangements with the Chinese (aka. the worlds most powerful industry), and if they US doesn't like it, that sounds like a them-problem..."

What's very likely not gonna happen, is other countries fighting the US's war for them. NATO already told trump no, other countries won't give different answers.

And anyone who wants to actually invade Iran...well, let's put it this way: Iran is 3-4 times the size of Afghanistan, with even more difficult terrain, and has a standing army of 600,000 men, with over 300,000 in reserve. They have an air force, are proficient in the manufacture of drones, have a working intelligence network. And they've had 4 decades to dig into defensive positions.

In short, it's not gonna happen.

Don't think there is much of a point replying to this person seriously as he is obviously a troll. You can take half a minute to check his profile

People having worldviews you disagree with does not make them "trolls".

> which country started this whole mess?

what has already started, is already started -- I agree on Trump being dick, but does that make iran's "making new enemies" a wise move?

> NATO already told trump no, other countries won't give different answers.

of course it said no BEFORE IRAN started the $2M toll (and other countries don't like trump due to tariff-for-everyone)

if the current iran regime was strategically wise, iran should have fired everything it got to Israel, and make the missile interception rate down to 40%. That would have actually showed it's power.

now, with even UAE's missile interception rate of 96%, iran actually showed its missiles are nuisances, not some existential threat.

600,000 men and 300,000 in reserve -- well that would have mattered a lot in medieval wars... "they have an airforce" -- well do they actually have planes? "have a working intelligence network" -- hmm...

no you're way way way over-estimating iran

the only strategic move for iran was selecting one specific target (israel) and focusing all its might, not becoming a rambo

Their win condition isn't destroying Israel, its outlasting the American will for the war until a leadership change happens. They aren't the attackers in this war. They need to just defend until America and Israel give up because it is too costly at home.

> its outlasting the American will for the war until a leadership change happens

well even in the best-case scenario (trump impeachment), I highly doubt any democrat president can actually stop at status quo -- rather, the next president has exactly zero choice but to wipe out iran MORE than trump (and call trump a weakling)

just leave Iran be and get out? well he/she could, GIVEN that Iran didn't show its potential to be bully on the gulf states and didn't even think about that $2M toll...

now? well even if a pirate has a sad back story, doesn't mean the navy can leave them be.

by missiling everyone nearby, iran just became too dangerous to nearby neighbors...

by even talking about $2M toll, iran just became too financially dangerous even to strait users... I mean, even if it's "just $2M", what will stop iran from asking $5M, $10M, or even $100M ?

> iran's "making new enemies"

Those countries were already enemies of Iran by virtue of housing US bases, military installations, etc.

> what has already started, is already started -- I agree on Trump being dick, but does that make iran's "making new enemies" a wise move?

There is no downside on making the Gulf states enemies. Quite to the contrary: they might lobby the USA to end this madness. It's a serious damage to the importance of the USA in the region if it can't or doesn't want to open the strait again, either by force or by making a deal.

But they swear an oath to serve Richard Stallman unto death.

I far prefer perplexity for that. The fact that it always cites its sources is great. And it has a search bar widget for android, and search bar integration for firefox so its pretty easy to use.

No this is product and finance. Product wants more features because that looks better to leadership. And finance likes ads

I know you dont to hear this, but theres just a hump to get over with this. Same with any investment. Youll be laughing 50 years down the line. Consider this a tree you might not get to sit under but will give shade to future generations