I think IP is the type of thing where countries that benefit from enforcing it will do so while those who get more benefit from ignoring it will ignore it. China has reached a point where they greatly benefit from IP now and may really start enforcing it. That said, I wouldn't bet on it. China has a tendency to act in ways that defy Western understanding of the world. (BTW, I love it when they do because it's one of those moments that make you go "huh?" and prompts you to investigate more. I usually end up learning something in the process. It's fun if you're into that kind of thing.)
I want to give grace to people who have outdated perspectives on China. China's journey in development is extraordinarily compressed. It's gone through more stages within a single generation than countries do in a century. People's perception will take time to catch up. Unless you're an avid China watcher, the changes in China can really surprise people.
When people say a book is good what does that mean? Good for infotainment? To get an intuitive understanding? To be able to open up Openthropic and compete against the frontier labs? What can you get in the book thats not available via a chatbot? Interesting question
well i cant speak for anyone else, but I can tell you there are quite a few books on transformers etc and this one does the best job of explaining how the guts (attention heads etc) work. has it good visualizations too
I've never tried it but can you explain why you like it?
The idea is a bit hard for me to comprehend because there are definitely occasions that I would tap my brake kind of hard and then immediately speed up again. Perhaps my mental model is still very much ICE engine and torque converter oriented and that's holding me back from understanding this. From an abstract point of view, it seems there is only one variable I'm controlling for, which is acceleration, so having two pedals is just doing the same thing with more steps (literally). One pedal should give me everything I need.
Anecdotally, to me it's just more fun. It increases range by relying entirely on the regenerative braking and relegating the disc brakes to an "emergency" role. For freeway driving in traffic it's also more intuitive, since you don't have to balance coasting/braking and can just ease off the pedal more to slow down quickly. Muscle memory can definitely be hard to break though, when I'm in a hurry I sometimes forget to enable single-pedal and drive for a bit before I realize it. The car we have (Chevy Bolt) has a separate regenerative brake control as a paddle on the back of the steering wheel for use in "regular" mode, but it's awkwardly placed.
It increases range by relying entirely on the regenerative braking and relegating the disc brakes to an "emergency" role.
I'm not sure about the Bolt, but most EVs work that way, one-pedal or not. Even a hybrid Prius doesn't seem to use the friction brakes unless it has to (emergency, coming to a low speed stop).
I don't like one-pedal on the Hyundai Ioniq if for no other reason than it uses both front/rear motors regardless. In contrast to Eco/Normal mode that uses the front motor only if it feels the need for moar power!!
As you suggest, it smooths out your driving habits. You’re just focusing on balancing the accelerator with your desired velocity, that’s it. Need to go slower? Back off the pedal until you hit the mark. The regenerative braking kicks in so it slows down quickly, sort of like light-to-medium braking. It’s more responsive than you might think. Need to go faster? Press the accelerator as usual. No more going back and forth between gas and brake, which makes it less exhausting in stop-and-go traffic. You’re also maximizing regenerative breaking, so that’s increased efficiency and less brake wear. That’s particularly good when you’re doing down hill.
The latter I would think. I can see how you can confuse the two. The reason I think otherwise is because you don't name the satellite after one client, especially if you're in the business of selling images/data, not satellites. And a flock of satellites make sense for a name.
Yeah I feel like China and their OSS model companies really did the world a great service by ensuring closed source US companies don't have an monopoly on LLMs and thus capture all the value of AI development and its impact on society. It's not going to be the foundational labs that will capture all the value -- I'm sure they will do just fine. A lot of it now will flow to the companies providing the inferences and since no one has any exclusive deals, those companies will have to compete and drive the price down, which ultimately benefits the rest of us.
It’s not a service, I hope nobody thinks this is being done ”for the good of humanity” or whatever. Doesn’t mean there’s not a benefit to people, but the financial politics behind it could turn out extremely good for China, and they are very well aware of just that.
Do American companies think about the "financial politics" of their decisions? I somehow really doubt it. Government takes sides and sometimes applies leverage to get companies to do what they want, but that's something separate from "it's a good business decision for Chinese labs to treat models as commodities". There's no need to think about geopolitics - American AI companies could easily take the same approach as the Chinese, but they all want to get exciting and huge VC cash rather than boring and less lucrative Compute-as-a-Service money.
American labs are also funded by the US government. Are they equivalent to the US state? Do Chinese and US labs/researchers exist solely in the international sphere, without any domestic concerns or individual aspirations? The Chinese have a different culture and political system than Americans, but it's not like they're ants without free will or the ability to think. I highly doubt that DeepSeek is operating solely at the behest of the CPC or that they are in business to take down the US rather than to make money.
You gotta remember there are people working at these companies with their own motivations, beliefs, and values. And to the extent that their government allows them to, they will act on those.
I think the people in the Chinese labs have a different set of motivations, beliefs, and values that make them more amenable to sharing AI as a common good rather than some economical advantage. I've heard that workers in the Chinese labs share far more knowledge between themselves, and the narrative around AI in China is different from what we see in the USA. So it is possible, I believe, that the labs are to some extent releasing open models "for the good of humanity", or at least they believe it is the right thing to do.
I think this is a false dichotomy between benevolence and China secretly plotting and puppeteering everything to some grand self serving scheme. Reality is probably a lot simpler and has little to do with either. In China there's intense domestic competition in most industries, including LLMs.
Going open weights is an easy way to gain mindshare in this sort of environment, which is exactly why Meta also went open weight. The difference is that in China you had leading models going open weight which puts a lot of downward pressure on other orgs to do the exact same. I doubt China's grand vision extends beyond achieving the best system possible, and fostering a highly competitive environment is exactly how you achieve that.
The fact that open weight frontier models may also cause the investment bubble in the US to burst is likely incidental. AI funding is a bubble, and it's going to burst. The exact final cause is again mostly just incidental. The economic damage this will cause in the US will also cause substantial downstream damage to China as well, and they generally aren't so big on the whole punch yourself in the face because you don't like another country, that has become trendy in the West. So the idea of a secret economic attack doesn't even make much sense. In the status quo China wins, so they don't even have any motivation to cause chaos.
Definitely not. DOS had disk compression utilities, but not RAM - there was no reasonable way to accomplish that at the time.
You may be thinking of "memory manager" utilities like QEMM and EMM386 which tried to maximize the amount of conventional memory available to programs (i.e. below the 640KB boundary). These programs worked primarily by causing drivers and TSRs to run in upper memory - they didn't actually provide more memory.
Oh right! I got disk compression and QEMM and EMM386 all mixed together in my now decades old memory (pun kind of intended) of DOS to produce that false recollection.
"I have used more than a few systems with ECC UDIMMs and I recommend avoiding them if convenient as ECC UDIMMs are expensive on the second hand market while ECC RDIMMs can get very cheap."
Boy did I learn that the hard way. I found an ASRock server motherboard that fit my needs for a NAS perfectly. I just assumed all ECC memory were registered so I didn't even bother to check. I had already put everything together minus the memory. I had actually purchased the memory and had to return them because they were RDIMMs and get the ECC UDIMMs for quite a bit more. Luckily this was just before the AI induced price spike.
A very large portion of people who go from working on consumer grade systems to getting enterprise grade stuff for their home lab make a mistake like that, I did some similar things, my biggest mistake was spending $300 on non-refundable ECC RDIMMs without realising that my server (the cheapest Dell Txxx server) took ECC UDIMMs.
I hope that my blog posts on these topics will save some people some money.
I want to give grace to people who have outdated perspectives on China. China's journey in development is extraordinarily compressed. It's gone through more stages within a single generation than countries do in a century. People's perception will take time to catch up. Unless you're an avid China watcher, the changes in China can really surprise people.