Many of these skills, rules, "playbooks", and such are kitchensink attempts at steering the model. It augments the model to frame it's reasoning according to project rules and flows, but cannot be really trusted to adhere to it. More of a vibe guideline.
One of my early experiments last year with open source models and context size was with GPT-OSS 20B (the mxfp4, the "smart" 4-bit quantization). Even though it boasted a 128k context size it was bad at recall around 32k characters (didn't bother to implement the tokenizer for counting).
The recall text was a simple hash generated, filler text from a dictionary file and a request at the end to return only the hash from the beginning of the prompt. Past 32k characters the response contained hallucinations of characters or full hashes.
Just having large context size doesn't paint a full picture of capabilities, prompt adherence and other quality metrics.
That's an uncharitable interpretation of the initial comment.
It can also be read as health-sensible reminder given the climate warnings. AC units demand is already up 26% year over year in my country (according to our biggest online retailer, a month ago). Will be a highly profitable year for manufacturers.
That's how I read it as well. It really sucks that one of the ways we will have to cope with climate change is to build a lot of energy intensive, expensive infrastructure, but it seems pretty much inevitable at this point. The silver lining is that solar is cheap and accessible, and produces the most energy at the time where we will want to run AC as well.
The problem with AC units is that they end up producing yet more heat, so whilst it may be "health-sensible" for the people inside, it's not so good for the people outside.
Yes, ACs are loud and put out more heat than they absorb. They are actually fairly antisocial and I can understand that a country that cares so much about its streetscape and its "outdoor rooms" in its cities does not want a wall of rattling machines dripping condensate from the six floors of every building.
It also makes perfect sense that the country would put thermostat limits in place. In America we have "coldness wars" in public places where companies crank the thermostat down lower and lower until you have a situation where everyone's sitting around an office or mall wearing sweaters because it's so cold inside the buildings.
None of this is about "ideology" it's about preserving a particular culture. A culture that maybe is being killed by the climate crisis that is rendering the outside uninhabitable, but again the redirection from talking about global warming to talking about the Silly Frogs is quite intentional and in bad faith. And it's not just from OP it's a coordinated media campaign.
I think Musk's luck is running out, he's been too political this past year and he seems to also have run out of geek "street cred". Remember youtubers visiting (whatever the Tesla trade show was called) were more perplexed than impressed with what has been shown. Similar sentiment seen across trade shows (like CES) where everything was AI and no one seemed to ask themselves "why are we putting AI in this?". The answer, of course, for startups and stock listed companies, to make themselves more valuable on paper.
Investors would probably be aware of that if they run any kind of sentiment analysis on online social media content. And at the same time there's some pull-out from tech stock. So maybe some are starting to realise that things are too shaky for their risk profile?
If you framed it as 'the biggest criminal' it'd still be impressive but would read mighty different. Acquiring money and power is no way to go through life. Not at that cost.
That’s some weirdly perverse attitude to have. Regardless if it’s Musk or anyone else, in general the actions of highly successful people have a disproportionally high impact on the society. So they need to be criticized as harshly as is reasonable for any misstep they take.
Some of the richest people the world has ever seen seem to tick all the same boxes as the least likeable and most devoid of love and empathy.
If only some billionaires (trillionaires?) could strike a better balance between successful and human. Especially since most wealth is actually wealth transfer from the poor and from taxpayer coffers to the rich.
It is only a single counterpoint in a sea of depressing examples but you may enjoy the story of Yvon Chouinard, owner of Patagonia, who gave it all away to trusts for protecting the environment.
Yvon is solid. Bezo's ex is good. There's plenty of gray, too, where they're trying to give a lot away or make life better for everyone.
But, fundamentally,bro become a billionaire, you exploited some people at some point in the process. Their mere existence is not ideal for society. And their assets would be better served distributed to the masses. Unfortunately, we also lack many good and strong governments and policies - so I wouldn't feel great just transfering their wealth to the governments of the world for said distribution, either.
I know this will sound inconceivable to you but some people genuinely think nobody should have that much money - including themselves. If you want to make it sound irrational and emotional the correct word wouldn't be "envy" - it would be "fremdschämen" or if you prefer something not borrowed from German: "cringe".
Yes I'm sure that is genuine belief and not just a manifestation of envy. I can't describe the level of contempt I have for people who go around opining on how much money they think other people should have.
It doesn't rise to the level of critique. Just baseless accusations and conspiracy theories. Success speaks for itself and the mental gymnastics of those that deny it screams "envy" as loudly as if it was written on the accuser's forehead.
Stalin was also an immensely talented and successful man. In fact he was so successful that any criticism of him became entirely inconceivable to many.
You are implying that any successful person should strive to achieve something like that? Or what point are you even trying to trying to make?
I have achieved nothing this year, and yet I have had a lot more success than Mr. Musk in the "human lives saved" category by not gutting USAID. With reasonable estimates on the weight of this category I'm quite confident to have been more successful overall as well.
I'm in agreement with your claim, though if you recall some of these micro SaaSes went hyperfocused on niches. The value proposition is then smaller, with larger data liability than with some behemoth's of SaaS.
Though for the later ones, one might also ask themselves if they are worth their cost when using 20-30% of provided functionality.
That would be a commercial activity. Codeberg is a non-profit host. I'm not familiar with german law but i assume non-profits can have some commercial activity (as long as they don't compete with commercial actors), but that would open an entire can of worms.
I think the path they chose is better: stay on their mission to provide free services to FLOSS projects who need it.
"Forward deployed engineers" starts to seem like a trend with some of these AI companies.
Selling high-rate outsourcing services with surely guaranteed lock-in mechanics, under the umbrella of accelerating AI adoption within the industry.
While before you at least owned the code and the know-how, now you can outsource that too while you're getting in return systems that share data with third parties and might also be generally vibecoded.
Many of these skills, rules, "playbooks", and such are kitchensink attempts at steering the model. It augments the model to frame it's reasoning according to project rules and flows, but cannot be really trusted to adhere to it. More of a vibe guideline.
reply