Given that Google is the named partner, it’s almost certainly Gemini. Also would make sense, Gemini’s (only, lol) strength is search grounded responses.
I was so excited to read this, get an inside view of how this problem must actually be much more nuanced than it seems for some reason not observable from the outside, just to read 10k words of whining and pleas for sympathy. When he finally makes it to the technical section it’s just “it’s a lab culture, there’s a lot going on.” There were some extremely inexcusable mistakes made apparent to anyone who knows anything about security at all. If the lab is spinning off experiments faster than you can improve your security posture just say that and own up to it (it’s what he appears to be trying to say in the worlds most mealy-mouthed way).
The "technical" part is anything but. There's no dive into what failed or why. No insight into process, observability, mitigation or prevention gaps that served as contributing factors. There's no explanation of measures taken to prevent future occurrences of the same issue. That whole section is just an attempt to deflect rather than inform.
The more I learn about Fireworks the more unsavory they seem as a company. I don’t care what the license says, Moonshot has been openly improving, sharing research, and providing weights for the models that make up your entire bottom line, and the moment you can improve them in reciprocal it’s closed weights, “this is our own proprietary” nonsense? Where are we that China has better open source ethos than America?
Kimi K3 itself isn't FOSS. Speaking of reciprocity: Fireworks is presumably paying Moonshot serious money for the right to do what they are doing here, since Kimi's license[0] excludes commercial inference providers (such as Fireworks) from gratis use. It requires them to: "...enter into a separate agreement with Moonshot AI before using the Software or its derivative works..."
What you say is true, and Moonshot definitely has an agreement with Fireworks, but it still just feels wrong. It’s not the America I grew up in, where if you took, you gave back. I know that’s not a very coherent and practical position, but it feels true to me.
They do have robotics, it’s just not as far along yet as you might expect looking at their progress in other domains. Look at Figure and Gemini Robotics for good examples of SOTA. They’re impressive, but not ready to be in the streets quite yet, I would guess one more year.
> Privacy preservation: an outside observer cannot determine whether any pair of reference images were taken by the same device. Image contents are not exposed to Apple or anyone else.
I am curious if the PCC processing makes it resilient to the method from a couple years ago of fingerprinting the microdistortions in an individual phone lens to tell when two photos were taken by the same phone.
We’re reaching quadratic slop. Slop projects that don’t understand what they’re shipping built on top of slop projects that also don’t understand what they’re shipping. Magnificent.
> As soft keywords, their use in the grammar is possible while still preserving compatibility with existing code that uses these names as identifier names.
Agree, I remember when even half precision made its way into C# sometime around 2020 (I didn’t know much about ML then) and I thought, well I guess that’s a worthwhile tradeoff but I can’t imagine going lower. Lo and behold (1-bit Bonsai) how much lower you could go.
They were right about everything 50+ years ago, but they didn't have the budget for the right hardware, had to write conference papers and books instead.
I can totally see how ternary would work from a physical implementation perspective but I have a really hard time visualizing anything using base-e, can you explain how such a thing would work in practice?
