I also instinctively reacted to that fragment, but at this point I think this is overreacting to a single expression. It's not just a normal thing to say in English, it's something people have been saying for a long time before LLMs existed.
> Redefining AI efficiency with extreme compression
"Redefine" is a favorite word of AI. Honestly no need to read further.
> the key-value cache, a high-speed "digital cheat sheet" that stores frequently used information under simple labels
No competent engineer would describe a cache as a "cheat sheet". Cheat sheets are static, but caches dynamically update during execution. Students don't rewrite their cheat sheets during the test, do they? LLMs love their inaccurate metaphors.
> QJL: The zero-overhead, 1-bit trick
> It reduces each resulting vector number to a single sign bit (+1 or -1). This algorithm essentially creates a high-speed shorthand that requires zero memory overhead.
Why does it keep emphasizing zero overhead? Why is storing a single bit a "trick?" Either there's currently an epidemic of algorithms that use more than one bit to store a bit, or the AI is shoving in extra plausible-sounding words to pad things out. You decide which is more likely.
It's 1:30am and I can't sleep, and I still regret wasting my time on this slop.
There is also the possibility that the article when through the hands of the company's communication department which has writers that probably write at LLM level.
That theory was always bunk. People just can't comprehend, that the average spammer really is that bad. So that theory was created to make sense of that.
Because of my work I investigated a lot of spam, and I discovered real life identities of senders in many cases (because of horrible or no exostent opsec). Most of them were either underage, lived in third world countries, or both.
Scams got sophisticated a while ago where they would exactly replicate things like password reset emails and such including a whole fake replica website that looks identical to the real one.
I saw someone fall for one recently where a scammer had created a fake announcement from an email sending company stating they were adding political messages to the bottom of your sent emails, and to log in to opt out. The look and feel of the email was pretty much perfect.
it doesn't help that all these companies' legitimate emails contain suspicious-looking links in the first place. the link tracking/shortening that's built into these services isn't doing them any favors for their actually important emails
The sophistication of scam emails these days is a big part of the switch to Passkeys, just physically making it impossible to give your credentials to the scammer site.
Remember that a large portion of the "real scam" is selling scamming techniques and systems to wanna-be scammers, some who never figure out how to replace the "insert viagra link here" text.
Phishing too. At one point in my job I was involved with taking down phishing sites, and we would sometimes get a copy of the Phish kit code from the site owner. These were basically extremely poorly written PHP scripts that people would buy from a scam-enabler and deploy to some website. The sophistication was the lowest possible level at each step. But even if you find the perpetrator bragging about it on Facebook, they're in Nigeria (for example) and the local government doesn't care at all.
The new trend is that the legitimate corporations sending you spam regardless of your communication settings, or even after unsubscribing for the 10th time.
Yes, I'm looking at you Teal HQ, you're spamming us even 3 months after deleting our accounts.
Thanks for chiming in. I'm looking for a reasonably cheap local LLM machine, and multiple 3090s is exactly what I planned to buy. Do you have any recommendations or recommend any reading material before I decide to spend money on that?
edit: Found your comment about /r/localllama, but if you have anything more to add I'm still very interested.
Either you missed the joke or I missed your sarcasm. I read GP as a joke: being literally kicked out of a flight in air is a death sentence, which is a bit harsh penalty indeed.
This. I work on projects that warrant a self hosted model to ensure nothing is leaked to the cloud. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that even though the only configured model is local, all my prompts are sent to the cloud to... generate a session title. Fortunately caught during testing phase.
If you're using software someone else wrote, you'd have to repeat this testing phase any time an update is installed, right?
(I do mean this as a general principle, but also it was pointed out elsewhere in the thread that this is a particularly "high velocity" project as far as unexpected changes go.)
I’m curious if there’s a reason you’re not just coding in a container without access to the internet, or some similar setup? If I was worried about things in my dev chain accessing any cloud service, I’d be worried about IDE plugins, libraries included in imports, etc. and probably not want internet access at all.
Yeah — you can develop in a container that’s configured to only allow local access. Your machine is connected to the Internet as usual, so you can access any docs you want or whatever, but the actual execution environment running on your machine can’t. This is pretty easy to set up in Docker, for example. It’s also useful because you can have the same exact dev environment no matter what machine you’re on, OS you’re running, etc.
This is also, unfortunately, the only way this can be settled. Making LLM output legally a derivative work would murder the AI golden rush and nobody wants that
No joke, feel free to try it! The beauty of the approach is that you don't have any limitations. Just be prepared to degraded experience, sometimes models struggle even with the simplest pop tracks :D
>No human should ever be forced to look at the code behind my vibe coded internal admin portal
Except security researchers. I work in cybersecurity and we already see vulnerabilities caused by careless AI generated code in the wild. And this will only get worse (or better for my job security).
Yep. Unless you inspect the payload and actual code / validation logic, there is nothing to distinguish an API that "works" and is totally insecure from one that is actually secure. I've seen Claude Code generate insecure APIs that "worked", only to find decided to add a user ID as a parameter and totally ignore any API token.
The issue isn't the game assets. The division between assets and code is something id invented so they could open up their old game engines while still being able to sell[0] copies of the original DOOM. But that boundary is entirely a choice of the developer, and a consequence of separability of copyright - if you make something, you can break up the rights and hand them out in different ways. Legally speaking, the only thing that matters is if any part of OpenTTD is the same as any part of Transport Tycoon.
This part gets a little confusing in software, because we have a proud history of both cultural norms and actual caselaw allowing unauthorized reimplementation of other people's copyright-bearing APIs. Applying copyright to software basically created a mutant form of patent law that lasts forever, so the courts had to spend decades paring it back by defining boundaries between the two. Reimplementation precedent is part of that boundary.
But all of that precedent relies upon software compatibility - the argument being that if you lawfully use someone else's software library to write software, you are not surrendering ownership over your own program to your library vendor, and someone else with a compatible replacement is not infringing the original library.
Legal arguments relying on reimplementation work well when the APIs in question are minimally creative and there is a large amount of third-party software that used them. The closest example would be something like Ruffle, which reimplements a Flash Player runtime that was used for a countless number of games. OpenTTD exists to reimplement precisely one game, specifically to enable a bunch of unauthorized derivative works that would be facially illegal if they had been applied directly to the TTD source code. This wouldn't fly in court.
In court, OpenTTD would be judged based on substantial similarity between its code and Transport Tycoon's code. While copyright does not apply to game rules, and cloning a game is legal[1], I am not aware of any effort in OpenTTD to ensure their implementation of those rules is creatively distinct from Transport Tycoon's. In fact, OpenTTD was forked from a disassembly of the latter, which is highly likely[2] to produce substantial similarity.
tl;dr I'm genuinely surprised Atari didn't sue them off Steam!
[0] Translation for pedants: "have a monopoly on selling". In the creative biz, two people generally don't make money selling the same thing.
[1] Trade dress and trademark lawsuits notwithstanding - The Tetris Company has done an awful lot of litigation on that front.
[2] The standard way to avoid this is clean-room reverse engineering. It's not a legal requirement, of course, but it helps a lot.
I liked the graphs. When skimming posts i often stop on graphical elements and decide if I want to understand the context or continue skimming. In this context, all three graphs were useful for me.
Posts with just text are sense and just not nice to read. That's why even text-only blog posts have a tendency to include loosely-related image at the top, to catch reader's eye.
reply