Meta already bought all openAI’s secrets; now it just needs to let the GPUs cook.
Readit Newshooloovoo_zoo commented on Meta Freezes AI Hiring After Blockbuster Spending Spree wsj.com/tech/ai/meta-ai-h... · Posted by u/polrjoy
hooloovoo_zoo commented on LLMs tell bad jokes because they avoid surprises danfabulich.medium.com/ll... · Posted by u/dfabulich
...can anyone come up with a legitimately funny punchline for "Why did the sun climb a tree?" I feel like I need a human-authored comparison. (With all due respect to OP's daughter, "to get to the sky" isn't cutting it.)
I'm not entirely sure that a good response exists. I thought GPT-5's "to demand photon credit from the leaves” was very mildly funny, maybe that's the best that can be done?
Maybe popsicle stick funny 'It was burnt out with being a rock-star'.
hooloovoo_zoo commented on A.I. researchers are negotiating $250M pay packages nytimes.com/2025/07/31/te... · Posted by u/jrwan
There’s been a lot of research on the necessity of singular geniuses. The general consensus (from studies on Nobel Prizes and simultaneous patent rates) is that advances tend to be moved by the research community as a whole.
You can get that technical or scientific context for a lot less than $250 million per head.
Yes but you can also instantly advance to the state of that person’s former company’s research state which cost them way more than 250M.
> I can tell you it's because he's actually a very skilled engineer. He will blow the interviews completely out of the water. Easily top 1% or top 0.1% of candidates -- other startups will tell you this as well.
It is hilarious that companies that hired a guy who was scamming them are also convinced they are great at assessing the skill level of devs.
The had 100 candidates and hired him. Top 1% QED. (/s)
[stub for offtopicness]
Poor Sam Altman, 300B worth of trade secrets bought out from under him for a paltry few hundred million.
Actually arXiv is moderated and if policies are violated they may even withdraw* a paper themselves, if it wasn't declined to be published in first place. Regarding policies, it's mentioned that a "submission may be declined if the moderators determine it lacks originality, novelty, significance, and/or contains falsified, plagiarized content or serious misrepresentations of data, affiliation, or content."
*Note that this creates a new version lacking any download which also becomes the default but any previous ones are still available.
Suppose that arXiv withdraws it and says the reason is fraud. What if it turns out to not be fraud? Either way, what if the author sues for libel? Why should arXiv spend resources evaluating papers after they've already been published on the arXiv? It's just inviting all the issues stackoverflow and the youtube copyright strike system have.
store of what? fake scientific articles or genuine preprints? if the latter clean this crap up
Judging quality/fraud is the role of a journal/conference, not arXiv. If a paper gets rejected does it come off arXiv? No. If a paper is never submitted does it come off? No. If a paper is retracted, does it come off? No. ArXiv should avoid making as many subjective determinations as possible.
I don't think arXiv should take it down even if it is fraud. ArXiv is more about being a permanent store than a quality judge.
hooloovoo_zoo commented on Why Archers Didn't Volley Fire acoup.blog/2025/05/02/col... · Posted by u/StefanBatory
> that would be insane and you'd gas out in seconds.
I mean there are lots of people that dumbbell row 95s or 100s or 105s for 8-10 reps (I used to be one em...). That's not really "seconds" but sure it's not a lot either. But then again no one literally only trains dumbbell rows so it's not at all unbelievable to me that you could do this (train to draw a high weight bow many times without "gassing").
Plus a dumbbell is the same weight the whole time while the bow is only the draw weight at full draw.