C++ committee members (mainly Boehm, but also Stroutstrup) also deserve a lot of credit for giving us a well specified memory model for concurrency outside of functional languages. Rust basically copy/pasted the C++11 memory model wholesale. Rust's fearless concurrency owes a lot to standing on the shoulders of giants.
Java deserve a lot of the credit for the happens-before concept that is the foundation of both its memory model and C++'s, but it can't express relaxed access and figuring out how to fit that in was a really big deal.
I don't think fearless concurrency is strongly related to the atomic memory ordering model.
C++ 11 wants to model two non-trivial orderings, Acquire-Release and Consume-Release, but only Acquire-Release is actually usable. So yes, C and Rust both also choose to offer Acquire-Release ordering like C++ but it's also clear that the universe of possibilities is actually smaller than WG21 realised when C++ 11 was developed.
If on your first random stab you guess 65537 is prime, you're correct and you might foolishly assume all those Fermat Numbers are prime and then try say, 4294967297. Nope, that's divisible by 641 for some reason. There are only Five of these Fermat Primes so far as we know, they weren't common after all.
My understanding is that Consume is actually a desirable semantic that models what algorithms often want, and would allow for more optimization than Acquire if implemented properly, but that its failure was due almost entirely to it being difficult to implement correctly in compilers. In particular, the semantic is difficult to preserve across all compiler passes, especially given that existing compilers are essentially 20-40 years of accumulated optimizations that were never designed to preserve this semantic.
I sometimes wonder how difficult it would be for a compiler that was designed from the outset to implement Consume correctly.
Nit: Rust currently adheres to C++20 memory model. At least one notable difference from earlier versions which tripped me up recently is that release sequences aren't extended by further writes.
Care to back this up? What evidence do we have to suggest that back propagation, self attention, and byte pair encoding are mechanistically similar to human cognition? Similarity of the outputs says nothing about similarity of the machinery underneath. Turboprop engines tell us nothing about how birds fly - doesn't matter that they successfully transport millions of people around the world.
I would say that when it comes to higher level cognition, logic engines are more human like even if they only have a tiny fraction of the practical utility of LLMs.
> Turboprop engines tell us nothing about how birds fly
That is not true.
Turboprop engines and flying birds are different things, but there is a set of common properties.
A blade of a screw propeller functions exactly in the same way as a flapping wing of a bird, except that the wing cannot rotate without limits around the body of the bird, so it must stop, change angles and revert the motion, while the blade can rotate continuously around the axis, functioning on one side like a falling wing and on the other side like a raising wing. The similarities between propeller blades and insect wings are even greater, because insect wings cannot change their shapes so much as those of birds.
For now, our understanding of the networks composed of the neurons of animals is much less advanced than our understanding of wings and propellers, which is why there is a much greater uncertainty about whether there are any similar mechanisms in biological neural networks and in LLMs.
Also, AFAIK, insects rely on their (flat) flapping wings to create lift by creating vortices.
"Nothing" may be a little too strong -- physics is physics, after all -- but (small) birds and airplanes have Reynolds numbers about 1000x different and different underlying material science.
Airplanes are engineered (with a very small number of exceptions) to be stable during flight, whereas bird flight is inherently unstable, requiring a lot of specialized cognition so birds can fly.
I would think a lot of cognitive ornithologists (who I really hope exist!) would be interested in finding out about this.
At this point, I'm at the complete end of my knowledge of bird flight!
We already know that the most basic mechanisms in ANN and actual neurons are very different. Spiking and neurotransmitters are basically everything in brains and don't exist in ANNs.
ok, compare a wheel to a human leg. If you look long enough you will find similarities, but you honestly cannot say that you "understand how humans walk" when all you can do is put a man in a wheelbarrow, move it, and say "look! my device accomplishes the same task!"
> A blade of a screw propeller functions exactly in the same way as a flapping wing of a bird, except that the wing cannot rotate without limits around the body of the bird
The "except" in your argument is doing an incredible amount of work. The rotation of a turboprops generates forward force, wings (whether a bird's or a plane's) generate lift. And plane's wings are called "wings" because they, and not the turboprop, mimic the structure and function of a bird's wings.
Regardless, this whole line of argument is missing the forest for the trees.
This is always the first response to criticism of LLMs, and it's starting to feel banal, because it's a counter that you can pull reflexively from your back pocket at any time without engaging with the actual content of the criticism. I'm not saying it's wrong necessarily, but rather that the added information value of "have you tried GPT Cosmica 15" in a discussion on LLMs is approaches zero. Because it's such a generically applicable response.
Well, it's just a rephrasing of "I don't share this experience at all."
And it's an easy explanation for why one person can be getting "confidently wrong" results still, and another person hasn't experienced it in a long time.
I'm one who hasn't experienced it lately. I haven't even thought about it in quite some time. Maybe a domain thing, maybe I'm not doing fancy enough work, maybe that guy is using some shitty model.
Seconding this. It's come to the point where I tried out gemini (argon) and saw it was giving me a wrong answer and was immediately shocked how far behind google obviously still is.
Is there an alternate reality where the dem aligned mass media didn't completely bury the ridiculously salacious laptop story (drugs, money for access aaaand onlyfans level nudity!!) to steer the election?
Because i distinctly recall the head of what to that point I though was a credible journalistic organization saying she didnt want to "waste people's time" with that.
The alternate reality is the one where "dem aligned mass media _did_ completely bury" -- because it's all I heard about for months, and months, and months, and months, and months, and months, and months, and months, and months, and months, and months, and months, and months, and months.
Money for access is a stretch, at least if you mean for Joe. Some speakerphone conversations that included no business, and zero evidence of Joe ever doing anything untoward that benefited any of Hunter's associates.
Archer was quite explicit in his testimony that if anything, Hunter was basically scamming them with the illusion of access.
Which, well, is bad, but if anything, the situation reflects that Joe never let his son influence him to do anything corrupt, which turns it entirely into a bunch of TMZ level drama about Hunter's drug and prostitution habits.
And I still heard about the laptop plenty before the election. If that is a buried story, then plenty of widely published and discussed stories would be buried by your definition.
The amount of attention it has received has always been silly.
Biden's laptop was in the possession of a computer shop in the US, and the owner leaked its contents to the media.
Kushner's phone data was in the possession of Dutch intelligence who didn't want the public to know they had it -- and as far as I know, this was not public knowledge until today.
Biden’s laptop was in the possession of “someone” who brought it to a blind computer repair person (seriously!), who then got in touch with Rudy Giuliani, who then leaked the contents to the media… and so we can’t really know who actually gained possession of it. The repair man was blind lol.
I think it's becoming clear that although the media just happily accepts the left-wing bias accusations, they are by no means left-wing. They shouted every random Biden mistake from the rooftops while this administration mostly gets a free pass.
The use of LLMs to make automatic or semi-automatic decisions on firing weapons. This is already happening [1, 2, 3] and has already led to weapons being delpoyed erroneously against civilian targets [1, 3]. It's easy to imagine it happening again on a larger scale, maybe involving nuclear weapons at some point in the future.
Establishing a correlation is only a starting point. After that there is an entire field of statistics called causal inference that is devoted to establishing causality using a variety of tools.
The strength of correlation is NOT the only useful metric and should not be mistaken for more rigorous statistical analysis regarding causality.
> A hand-rolled recursive descent parser can say something like "missing semicolon after return statement" because the code knows exactly what construct it's in.
> A generated parser's error is usually derived mechanically from the state machine, "expected one of: X, Y, Z, got W", which is correct but generic.
You are not describing the difference between hand-written and generated but rather top down vs. bottom up.
There may be some confusion here because hand-written parsers are almost always recursive decent (a form of top down), while the most popular parser generators (yacc, bison) are bottom up. However hand-written bottom up parsers do exist (Pratt parsing, recursive ascent), as do top down parser generators (ANTLR, Coco/R, Chumksy). Chumsky in particular gives pretty decent error messages out of the box.
Bottom up parsers can parse a larger set of languages than top down parsers, but the tradeoff is you don't know what you are parsing until you successfully reduce the rule (unlike top down parsers). This is why errors in bottom up parsers often lack comments on structure/context like "after return statement" and can only give a list of which alternative symbols would have been valid.
This is a classic Russian perspective on the war - that Ukraine is a gang of neo-Nazis that are dead set on eliminating Russian speakers from Ukraine by force. Russians will further claim that this gang of Russophobic neo-Nazis is led by Zelenskyy, a Jewish man who speaks Russian as his mother tongue and Ukrainian as a second language.
The absurdity of this claim should be self evident.
FYI "Jewish Nazi" isn't actually an oxymoron. In WW2 there were hundreds of thousands of Nazi party members who were Jews - they mostly got gassed along with the other Jews. Plus the whole Palestine thing.
Zelenskiy isn't a Nazi, but the reason he isn't a Nazi isn't because he's Jewish.
However this is one of the weakest possible grievances you could raise because Putin also released rapists and murderers from prison to raise manpower, most famously during the spring 2023 Bakhmut offensive. There is no moral highground on that point.
Actually, this is actually a near universal issue with Russian grievances against Ukraine. Virtually any grievance that Russia can claim against Ukraine, Ukraine can claim that exact grievance back at equal or greater measure.
You're finally getting it. Russia and Ukraine are truly the same when it comes to seeking their own interests. Ukraine was happy to fund far-right psychos to go terrorize Russian citizens of Ukraine after 2014 because that's the bargain they made. Russia invaded to stop NATO/EU from ending the kleptocracy because they are horrible shit stain oligarchs.
reply