Qwuke (u/Qwuke) - Readit News

Qwuke commented on Meta Segment Anything Model 3 ai.meta.com/blog/segment-... · Posted by u/alcinos

vessenes · 22 days ago

Released last week. Looks like all the weights are now out and published. Don’t sleep on the SAM 3D series — it’s seriously impressive. They have a human pose model which actually rigs and keeps multiple humans in a scene with objects, all from one 2D photo (!), and their straight object 3D model is by far the best I’ve played with - it got a really very good lamp with translucency and woven gems in usable shape in under 15 seconds.

Qwuke · 22 days ago

Between this and DINOv3, Meta is doing a lot for the SOTA even if Llama 4 came up short compared to the Chinese models.

Qwuke commented on Giving C a superpower: custom header file (safe_c.h) hwisnu.bearblog.dev/givin... · Posted by u/mithcs

krapht · a month ago

C++: "look at what others must do to mimic a fraction of my power"

This is cute, but also I'm baffled as to why you would want to use macros to emulate c++. Nothing is stopping you from writing c-like c++ if that's what you like style wise.

Qwuke · a month ago

It's interesting to me to see how easily you can reach a much safer C without adding _everything_ from C++ as a toy project. I really enjoyed the read!

Though yes, you should probably just write C-like C++ at that point, and the result sum types used made me chuckle in that regard because they were added with C++17. This person REALLY wants modern CPP features..

Qwuke commented on Heretic: Automatic censorship removal for language models github.com/p-e-w/heretic... · Posted by u/melded

embedding-shape · a month ago

Optuna is a generally useful project, that I'm surprised isn't used in more places in the ecosystem. The ability to do what they're doing here, incrementally find the best hyperparameter to use can really make a large difference in how quickly you can move past having to fine-tune those values. Basically any time you aren't sure about the perfect value, throw Optuna on it with a quick script, and make it go for a broad search first, then narrow it down, and you can let the computer figure out the best values.

Nicely done to pair that with something as fun as censorship removal, currently in the process on running it on gpt-oss-120b, eager to see the results :) I'm glad that someone seems to be starting to take the whole "lobotimization" that happens with the other processes seriously.

Qwuke · a month ago

I've seen Optuna used with some of the prompt optimization frameworks lately, where it's a really great fit and has yielded much better results than the "hyperparameter" tuning I had attempted myself. I can't stop mentioning how awesome a piece of software it is.

Also, I'm eager to see how well gpt-oss-120b gets uncensored if it really was using the phi-5 approach, since that seems fundamentally difficult given the training.

Loading parent story...

Loading comment...

Loading parent story...

Loading comment...

Qwuke commented on Liquibase continues to advertise itself as "open source" despite license switch github.com/liquibase/liqu... · Posted by u/LaSombra

sarchertech · 2 months ago

>Because everyone was always a user

In the very early days they were always the same, but differences between use and distribution emerged quickly.

For example, there are zero restrictions, duties, or obligations on using the software. But once you distribute changes (or in the AGPL case allow other people to use your changes), duties and obligations attach.

Qwuke · 2 months ago

>In the very early days they were always the same, but differences between use and distribution emerged quickly.

I think those concerns existed at the time of the writing of the first bulletin, if you read how they were expecting to be compensated. See the part titled "So, how could programmers make a living?".

>For example, there are zero restrictions, duties, or obligations on using the software. But once you distribute changes (or in the AGPL case allow other people to use your changes), duties and obligations attach.

Yep, the duty and obligation to redistribute, as mentioned in the bulletin above - but without a single company being the sole arbiter or commercializer of the source, as defined in the Free Software Definition you mention elsewhere. Freely, as in free speech.. A quote from the original bulletin:

```

This means much more than just saving everyone the price of a license. It means that much wasteful duplication of system programming effort will be avoided. This effort can go instead into advancing the state of the art.

Complete system sources will be available to everyone. As a result, a user who needs changes in the system will always be free to make them himself, or hire any available programmer or company to make them for him. Users will no longer be at the mercy of one programmer or company which owns the sources and is in sole position to make changes.

```

In the SaaS era, freedom is impinged not because hyperscalers make money off of free software. That was always the intended goal, because it isn't freedom like free beer or simply 'non-commercial uses'. Freedom is impinged because modifications of the software aren't redistributed if distribution is only done over generated artifacts on a network. AGPL is specifically for networked software like this.

Unless you're implying that the GNU foundation, Richard Stallman, or the free software movement generally ever viewed even narrowly commercially restrictive licenses as free software. Which you can tell from the source documents and all others in this comment thread, that is obviously not the case.

Loading parent story...

Loading comment...

Loading parent story...

Loading comment...

Loading parent story...

Loading comment...

Qwuke commented on Liquibase continues to advertise itself as "open source" despite license switch github.com/liquibase/liqu... · Posted by u/LaSombra

sarchertech · 2 months ago

The original use before the 4 freedoms were codified said nothing about the rights of non user vendors.

Qwuke · 2 months ago

>the rights of non user vendors

Because everyone was always a user in the definition of free software! Because it's free as in free speech.. In the first bulletin where the definition was made, Stallman envisioned no restrictions on distribution and a user being a business was entirely unrelated to how compensation were to occur: https://www.gnu.org/bulletins/bull1.txt