It's not a secret mission. Dario and Anthropic in aggregate are anti-open model due to safety reasons (coupled with anti-China sentiment due to their distillation/hacking).
This is just a furtherance of their open agenda, though they haven't gone as far as declaring that open source models should be banned (which would hurt their PR with developers in general), they are clearly laying the groundwork.
Personally, I don't see facebook joining the fray (of fable level models) particularly "needle moving" in the discussion of whether frontier LLMs will be commoditized. Facebook spent hundreds of billions and have better talent than most.
If you can spend your way to Frontier LLMs even if it's a few hundred Billion that means it's a commodity same as nuclear or electricity or telecom.
This is the entire point here, give it a couple years every nation on the planet with 20-40B in funding would have their own champions with post Fable level performance.
I feel like Grok/xAI or whatever they're calling it was Exhibit A in "it just takes money", although I'd also add "and the organizational willingness to build not buy".
> give it a couple years every nation on the planet with 20-40B
Was this sarcasm?
How many nations on earth have 20-40B for LLM training? At 40.2 B, Spain has the 15th largest military budget in the world. I doubt any nation will spend 40B on gradient descent.
>Even using the original ps2 or ps3 controller with the right drivers on PCSX2 doesn't really reproduce the same smooth acceleration/brake curve of the PS2.
why not? if we're at the point of byte perfect recomp of system firmware+games, surely we could find a patch that would fix that in both pcsx2 or this project
Generic PS2-to-USB adapters ignore that part of the spec, so the PC doesn't receive these inputs at all. You'd need to build your own adapter out of Arduino or something.
There are two types of generic PS2 to usb adapters, the one designed for pc (usually has two ports) and the one designed for PS3. The PS2 to PS3 controller adapters work perfectly with the right drivers (DSHidMini on Windows).
Cool, didn't know that. I thought they've got rid of pressure sensitive buttons in PS3 already, not PS4. Thanks!
So apparently, to make pressure sensitive PS2 controller work in PCSX2, you need ShanWan PS2-to-PS3 adapter (or equivalent), DSHidMini, and set input mode to SDL. Since I lack both pieces of hardware, I can't test it myself. Or skip the middleman and get a PS3 controller, which is a better option anyway for several reasons.
I think the game is simply hardcoded with a sensitivity curve and deadzone specific for the Dualshock 2 pressure buttons on a regular PS2. Some third-party controls aren't too great to use with PS2 GT games, too.
Patching that is possible I guess, but it would also require setting up some sort of calibration in the game.
Most people I know use the DualShock 4 for PS2 emulation. All you need is to write a mapping for the DS3, 4 and 5 to the DS2 curve and you can cover a big part of the users.
The author comments on the popularity of agents and then says this:
>chatbots and agents and other tasks may increasingly be handled on PCs and phones and smart glasses...
To me this article seems poorly researched. Agents aren't just a new version of LLMs. They're proactive and persistent. I love how my agents watch commits and rewrite my projects as new upstream features become available. I like how my agents will check pricing to look for deals and watch for new listings on Facebook marketplace. None of those things will ever be happening constantly on my phone. Phones, by design, aren't persistently active. Think the author ignores all that when they envision a future where agents increasingly run locally.
I don't expect Tao to be well versed in medicine, but yeah, that slide is detached from clinical practice.
Medicine has never required that the method of action for a treatment be fully understood. Our current regulatory framework only checks for safety and efficacy because we've never formally understood everything going on in the body. Seems like a difference between "hard" science and the clinical/engineered implementation.
>OpenAI drops some hundreds of "solutions", incomprehensibly written "solutions", and we are all expected to jump on them and what? Appreciate their contributions? Why?
...
>So, no, I will not be sending Sam Altman a bottle of whisky anytime soon, nor I am planning on spending my time reading through that paper and trying to make sense of it.
Think about a hypothetical circumstance where we get radio communication with some aliens on another planet. They send over tons of math to help us advance our tech, we know the math they're sending us is correct, but their explanations are really hard to work through because they aren't humans and the math is so different from anything we've done. Should we whine about the results they sent to us and refuse to engage with it?
Love your metaphor here. I guess there will always be people who try to keep going and follow their current projects and say that only human math is real math and we should only use alien technology for proofreading mails and such but not their highly established and esteemed professions.
Or just keep your hubris low, update your priors, work towards progress.
In this hypothetical case funding agencies would probably happily pay for “alien maths translation grants” and you could write papers about advances in that field and get jobs etc. So arguably for better or worse it would create a specialised academic cottage industry that somehow interfaces with the rest of maths.
>The pair calculate the figure in different ways, with Anthropic including the revenue from sales via cloud partners such as AWS and Google Cloud, while OpenAI does not.
gift link didn't work for me, and is this poorly phrased? because it seems implausible that OpenAI doesn't typically include revenue from their models being used on AWS. Perhaps the "gross up" is referring to how the number is included? like Anthropic was using the value pre-removal of revenue sharing and putting the revenue share subtraction as a separate expense?
[not a finance guy so someone tell me I'm wrong if that's not a plausible reading]
I don't think the two authors were told about a super secret mission.
reply