On the other hand, it would be fun to explore these on device SLMs on a more capable phone with extra ram/storage.
On the other hand, it would be fun to explore these on device SLMs on a more capable phone with extra ram/storage.
I think CUDA shouldn't be label as SIMD but SIMT. The difference in overhead between the two approaches is vast. A true Vector machine is far more efficient but with all of the massive headaches of actually programming it. CUDA and SIMT has a huge benefit in that if statement actually execute different codes for active/inactive bins. I.e different instructions execute on the same data in some cases which really aids. Your view might also be the same instructions operate on different datas but the fork and join nature behaves very different.
I enjoyed your other point though about the comparsions of machines though
My experience with RVV (i am aware of vector architecture history, just using it as an example)so far indicates that while it is not the greatest thing, it is not that bad either. You play with what you have!!
Yes, compared to regular SIMD, it is a step up in complexity but nothing a competent SIMD programmer cannot reorient to. Designing a performant hardware cpu is another matter though - lot of (micro)architectural choices and tradeoffs that can impact performance significantly.
What has intelligence (let alone superintelligence) or lack of, got to do with the last two. All these discussions about AGI seems to have reduced what it means to be a human being to a token generator.
Disgusting take.
If indeed Ghibli goes with Miyazaki, then let it go. Sometimes art is just done and that's a concept as a culture we have so much friction with. If a game isn't updating, it's dead. If a movie isn't getting a sequel, it's dead. If a studio stops creating it's treated like some kind of loss, as if the beautiful things it's already made aren't good enough because there can't be any more.
Not every movie needs sequels, not every "universe" needs to have every corner of it documented and turned into subsequent works. For fucks sake just let stuff be finished, and that attitude comes with a bonus feature where maybe creatives won't be constantly burning themselves out under the demands of every audience.
I genuinely can't fathom the sort of person who is like "this artists' work moved me and elevated me as a person, but I guess if they die I can use shitty image gen programs to see more of what they might've made." Gross. Just gross.
How swiftly the strained honey of afternoon light flows into darkness
and the closed bud shrugs off its special mystery in order to break into blossom
as if what exists, exists so that it can be lost and become precious
What I think AI will very soon get to is being able to generate code to that “functional sharpness” level, while human engineers are caught striving for that as “sharp as possible” level because they care for their craft. The cost difference is just not worth it to the organizations and the trade off will be AI generated code that will be “good enough”. Sure a talented dev could do better, but that juice just won’t be worth the squeeze. To me, embracing the tools and becoming an prompting expert is the way to go, rather than some Luddite-like rejection of the technology because of some offended artistic notions.
Your first part may be right, however using the term Luddite as a pejorative without understanding what they meant or stood for (given the social context) is a sign of ignorance.
People realize this at various points in their life, and some not at all.
In terms the author might accept, the metaphor of the stoic archer comes to mind. Focusing on the action, not the target is what relieves one of the disappointment of outcome. In this cast, the action is writing while the target is having better thoughts.
Much of our life is governed by the success at which we hit our targets, but why do that to oneself? We have a choice in how we approach the world, and setting our intentions toward action and away from targets is a subtle yet profound shift.
A clearer example might be someone who wants to make a friend. Let's imagine they're at a party and they go in with the intention of making a friend, they're setting themselves up for failure. They have relatively little control over that outcome. However, if they go in with the intention of showing up authentically - something people tend to appreciate, and something they have full control over - the changes of them succeeding increase dramatically.
Choosing one's goals - primarily grounded in action - is an under-appreciated perspective.
The primary reason is not that it relieves us of the disappointment, but that worrying about the outcome increases our anxiety and impacts our action which hampers the outcome.
Like the sibling comment said, I should be able to choose to be able to pair my phone with my car.
Perhaps "Faustian computing"?
Deleted Comment
India US relationship has historically been bad. It turned around only during the Bush administration with the civil nuclear treaty. So, this good relationship has been there for last 25 years or so. In comparison India has a longer history with Russia.
India was one of the first countries to start working on a deal with US. India subsidizes agriculture as much as US. Indian farmers are a big voting block. Hence the trade deal has been at stuck:
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/...
That means it is a political suicide for the current Indian government to sign any sort of deal with Trump unless the agriculture part is removed.
And as much you want to tout IT services, overall GDP contribution is 11.47% and pharma is 1.72%. Someone has told me that the remittances from India to US is 3%. All that combines to less than 19% contributed by agriculture.
Add the fact that previous US administration was okay with India buying Russian oil to help stabilize global oil prices: https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/us-wanted-india-to-buy-russi...
That just pours more fuel on fire. Pun intended.
Additionally, I don't get why people keep thinking that getting deals is some sort of a master plan. Countries routinely break their deals. Its not only US - who you think has "lot of power" which gets to do that. Countries go to WTO to try and resolve it but US has chosen to side step that as well. Case in point US Canada diary dispute: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds103_e...
If you think US has "lots of power" and countries, in the long term, are not going to intentionally make things difficult, I have a bridge to sell you.
That is the direct GDP contribution of IT/allied services. The indirect societal contribution is significant. Most real estate in big cities, transportation, food and other services rely on the IT industry. Expect a lot of pain in India when this is impacted.