After reading the paper, I'm really unsure what the novel contribution is. It feels like they're attempting to rebrand well-understood concepts within various fields (control systems theory, etc). The provided mathematical definition of antifragility is somewhat unconvincing too: it's not that it's wrong, per say, but in the effort to find something sufficiently broad to apply to many different fields of applied dynamical theory they've had to adopt a definition which is a bit unintuitive, and overly general.
This is really funny - it's bordering on truly absurd, almost incomprehensible madness to consider doing this seriously. I can't think of a single property you'd desire in a control system (state observability, auditability, guarantees on out-of-band input behaviour, stability under shocks, etc, etc) that would be present in an LLM control model.
I don't want to be disrespectful to the authors, and it's (vaguely) interesting to see how far they've been able to go with this, but this idea is still an abomination.
Science is like that. The problem is not with science or with this material not being super-conducting. The problem is with how science is explained in media. Failing to test hypothesis is a critical step in the scientific method.
It's important that public understand the difference between a preprint in arXiv, a paper in a serious peer review journal and the truth.
We've seen a lot of miracle cures during the covid-19 epidemic where all the support was a bunch of preprints (and some of the preprints were horrible, I read a few of them to write angry comments in HN).
A paper in a serious peer review journal (if possible/relevant preregistered and with a randomized controlled group) is much better evidence, but it still can be wrong.
I still use it sometimes for trivial stuff like giving me recipe or travel inspiration (using the web search API), but I haven't been using it for any sort of algorithms/coding stuff.
It's useful for tasks which have a high tolerance for not being completely correct. Which is definitely a subset of all tasks that interest me, but it's a smaller subset that I originally thought it would be. It's just really hard to find out where the models are wrong when it's a complex question. If it wasn't, then I wouldn't need the tool, I guess.
Some strange claims in this post. The reddit post datasets are already 'out there' in the wild, and I'm fairly certain every other major LLM release has used their data. Also - did Midjourney "steal" DALLE-2's lunch? It's a restrictive service with essentially a discord-only based CLI.
Yeah, definitely. Combination of expert-system gating (some requests probably get routed to weaker models), distillation (for performance/cost), and RLHF lobotomization.
The last turtle is probably assembly, or at least intrinsics, in most good BLAS implementations. Probably called from C, because that’s easier in C.
The nice thing about Fortran is that you get something almost as good, but a normal engineer can write it. There are more C programmers than Fortran programmers, but there are more Fortran programmers than there are C programmers who can write really good assembly kernels. And all the C programmers in that last group are already working on vendor BLAS implementations.
Lilian Weng's blog is my go-to example for an extremely high quality tech blog, it's truly remarkable how consistently excellent each post is. The only downside is the sadness I feel for being incapable of producing content even remotely near that level of quality myself.
This is 100% related to (suspected) fraud, anti money laundering, or other types of financial/political sanctions. You may be 100% innocent, but they will never disclose any information to you about their reasoning (and in fact it is illegal for them to do so). Sorry this has happened.
Yup, HN loves to rail on banks like HSBC getting busted for money laundering. Well, this is the result - they come up with certain criteria (which is never divulged or else people could work around it) and if you hit it, boom, your account is closed.
It's the natural response to government attempts at clamping down on money laundering. Your individual value as a customer comes no where close to the financial hit from a massive money laundering scandal.
