I doubt most of us would like to complain about anything, but with so many people (ab)using AI for writing their blogposts, it feels that a lot of the Web has become _homogenous_ in terms of style, and it's unfortunate.
>The circle jerking of Chinese models on this site never ceases to amuse me.
As opposed to "ask the model about Tiananmen" which seems to be the site's favorite pastime about Chinese models. ;)
--
Sarcasm aside, I don't think people are happy about _Chinese_ models making advances. They are happy about _open_ models making advances. It's just coincidental that China is the one making them.
If some American lab were to develop a SOTA open model most people here will be equally excited. Although besides GPT-OSS-120B the American labs have been disappointing in this regard.
I think we all know how poor China was in the naughties. They needed foreign investments to enter their country. So now let's think about it: with strict regulations, would have those investors chosen China?
Or do you believe that the Chinese (the people not the government) deserve to live a poor life forever?
China was the 3rd largest economy in the world. Their middle class was fine. If they wanted to add some environmental regulation it wouldnt have halted growth.
Per captia data is not useful because they have so many people who live rural lives without tech. Their urban class was doing well and causing a ton of pollution just like the US does. They then scaled up even more in the least emission efficient ways complete disregard for the damage it would do.
Your partial quote is quite misleading. The article obviously talks about "efficient frontier", not "intelligent frontier".
>In the AI industry, we borrowed the term “efficient frontier” from economists. We use it to talk about managing tradeoffs, most often the tradeoff between cost and capabilities for models. A model is a “frontier model” if it offers the highest degree of intelligence at a given cost or size.
The same problem exists for x86. Is $program built for x86-64 with SSE2? AVX2? AVX512? (I chose those three because they are programmer-visible. Programmers have to use intrinsics to exploit those ISA extensions effectively.)
For RISC-V the questions to ask are similar: Is this built for RVA20? Or RVA23? (The big feature of RVA23 is the Vector extension, again something that is programmer-visible)
Embedded RISC-V programmers will have to ask a lot more questions. But for most programmers the whole fragmentation thing is simply a giant meme repeated ad nauseam.
Intel has done such a good job keeping AVX512 support away from reaching ubiquitous adoption, it's insane. There are so many useful instructions in AVX512 which are just missing from AVX/AVX2 that you can't assume exist, even on modern CPUs, because Intel can't get their shit together.
The core problem was tying instructions to bit width. But I'm actually surprised that they didn't add AVX512 support through double pumped 256-bit operations like AMD did for a while.
Capitalists don't believe in silly things like public infrastructure that might make the world better for everyone instead of making the wealthiest people wealthier. Reducing profit to save lives is socialism.
Of course there will always be sound rationale: "Don't they deserve to profit? These services cost money, so who will pay for them? And who are you to judge, for how many lives have you saved today? Aren't you just jealous?" And so on, for the love of wallowing in societal decay, happy to turn a blind eye to the suffering because common experiences feel remote when they happen to someone else, and we forget the connection to our political choices when they happen to us too.
There's no money left to spend on health because the yachts and jets can't buy themselves yet. Your life and health and wellbeing have no value if someone else can't get rich from them. So, no, no infrastructure for public good, only hundreds of millions of dollars per day to bomb Iran to distract from the Epstein files. And haven't you seen? The stock market is flying high, which is basically just as good as taking care of the poor.
I don't know if we should jump immediately to that conclusion. The article has plenty of tiny typographical/grammatical errors suggesting it was human written, or at the very least a human was significantly involved in the loop.
Sometimes people just want to geek out and talk about technical things, this isn't rocket science, is it?
Yes, those people mostly do realize the importance of understanding and discussing politics. But that doesn't mean _every single_ thread must devolve into a political discourse, especially when those discourses have a general tendency to lead to nowhere. It gets real tiring real fast...
I am willing to bet my 20 cents that you don't talk about saving the environment every single time you eat. And the reason is much the same -- it gets tiring.
Anyway. If you want to make a political statement, why not do it in a more suitable thread rather than a thread simply about the release of a model? It's not like HN strictly bans political threads.
reply