And you can’t tell when something is active/focused or not because every goddamn app and web site wants to use its own “design language”. Wish I had a dollar for every time I saw two options, one light-gray and one dark-gray, with no way to know whether dark or light was supposed to mean “active”.

I miss old-school Mac OS when consistency was king. But even Mac OS abandoned consistency about 25 years ago. I’d say the introduction of “brushed metal” was the beginning of the end, and IIRC that was late 90s. I am old and grumpy.

Say all you want about hallucinations, but AI will never be able to outperform humans at bullshitting, so sales and marketing is safe.

“It’s popular so it must be good/true” is not a compelling argument. I certainly wouldn’t take it on faith just because it has remained largely unquestioned by marketers.

The closest research I’m familiar with showed the opposite, but it was specifically related to the real estate market so I wouldn’t assume it applies broadly to, say, groceries or consumer goods. I couldn’t find anything supporting this idea from a quick search of papers. Again, if there’s supporting research on this (particularly recent research), I would really like to see it.

If there is any research from the last 50 years suggesting this actually works, I’d love to see it.

I haven’t seen this movie in like 25 years, but I still read this in Marisa Tomei’s voice.

Jerboa is solid, but it’s not feature-rich. Not great for media browsing. It’s still my main client since I use Lemmy mostly for text, not images or videos.

Eternity and Voyager are worth looking at, too.

Being factually incorrect about literally everything you said changes nothing? Okay.

More importantly, humans are capable of abstract thought. Your whole argument is specious. If you find yourself lacking the context to understand these numbers, you can easily seek context. A good starting place would be the actual paper, which is linked in OP’s article. For the lazy: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-61146-4

It’s 14,000 to 75,000, not millions.

Microplastics are in the range of one micrometer to five millimeters, not nanometers.

They link to the full source paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-61146-4

That seems more like your problem than OP’s.

I think there are two problems that make this hard to answer:

1. Not all sentences that can be parsed grammatically can also be parsed logically.

2. Human-language sentences do not contain all the information needed to evaluate them.

It is impossible to fully separate context from human language in general. The sentence “it is cold” is perfectly valid, and logically coherent, but in order to evaluate it you’d need to draw external information from the context. What is “it”? Maybe we can assume “it” refers to the weather, as that is common usage, but that information does not come from the sentence itself. And since the context here is on the Internet, where there is no understanding of location, we can’t really evaluate it that way.

It’s hot somewhere, and it’s cold somewhere. Does that mean the statement “it is cold” is both true and false, or does that mean there is insufficient information to evaluate it in the first place? I think this is largely a matter of convention. I have no doubt that you could construct a coherent system that would classify such statements as being in a superposition of truth and falsehood. Whether that would be useful is another matter. You might also need a probabilistic model instead of a simple three-state evaluation of true/false/both. I mean, if we’re talking about human language, we’re talking about things that are at least a little subjective.

So I don’t think the question can be evaluated properly without defining a more restrictive category of “sentences”. It seems to me like the question uses “sentence” to mean “logical statements”, but without a clearer definition I don’t know how to approach that. Sentences are not the same as logical statements. If they were, we wouldn’t need programming languages :)

Apologies for the half-baked ideas. I think it would take a lifetime to fully bake this.

It says:

Available Architectures
aarch64, x86_64

And it uses Android Translation Layer. Interesting. I’ll give it a shot on my desktop later.

Better links to the community:

!taneggs@lemmy.ca

/c/taneggs@lemmy.ca

I claim ownership of the microorganisms in and on my body. I am not merely human; I am a glorious amalgamation of trillions of distinct beings, working in harmony to bring you shitposts!

As a begrudging Comcast customer myself, allow me to explain. They are the least shitty option because the only alternatives in my area are 5G and Verizon DSL. Verizon DSL has a max download speed less than 1mbps.

So yeah, I use Comcast. And I hate it.

However, it is still comparatively easy for a determined individual to remove a watermark and make AI-generated text look as if it was written by a person.

And that’s assuming people are using a model specifically designed with watermarking in the first place. In practice, this will only affect the absolute dumbest adversaries. It won’t apply at all to open source or custom-built tools. Any additional step in a workflow is going to wash this right out either way.

My fear is that regulators will try to ban open models because the can’t possibly control them. That wouldn’t actually work, of course, but it might sound good enough for an election campaign, and I’m sure Microsoft and Google would dump a pile of cash on their doorstep for it.

I also sometimes use the mbasic.facebook.com site from a private Firefox tab on my iPhone, but FB has just started telling me I need to use Chrome

WTF.

But really, using a Chromium-based or Safari-based browser in private/incognito mode will not be much different as far as tracking goes.

You might also be able to install a user-agent switcher extension in Firefox. I thiiiiiink Firefox supports extensions on iOS now, right? If not, you can try an alternative browser like Duckduckgo or Orion.

Who thought it was a good idea to let an internet ad company control our internet client?

It seemed a lot more reasonable 15 years ago. The default on Windows at the time of Chrome’s rise was Internet Explorer.

I am watching Ladybird with great interest. The world needs a new-from-the-ground-up browser.

Yeah, AMD is lagging behind Nvidia in machine learning performance by like a full generation, maybe more. Similar with raytracing.

If you want absolute top-tier performance, then the RTX 4090 is the best consumer card out there, period. Considering the price and power consumption, this is not surprising. It’s hardly fair to compare AMD’s top-end to Nvidia’s top-end when Nvidia’s is over twice the price in the real world.

If your budget for a GPU is <$1600, the 7900 XTX is probably your best bet if you don’t absolutely need CUDA. Any performance advantage Nvidia has goes right out the window if you can’t fit your whole model in VRAM. I’d take a 24GB AMD card over a 16GB Nvidia card any day.

You could also look at an RTX 3090 (which also has 24GB), but then you’d take a big hit to gaming/raster performance and it’d still probably cost you more than a 7900XTX. Not really sure how a 3090 compares to a 7900XTX in Blender. Anyway, that’s probably a more fair comparison if you care about VRAM and price.

Basically the only thing that matters for LLM hosting is VRAM capacity

I’ll also add that some frameworks and backends still require CUDA. This is improving but before you go and buy an AMD card, make sure the things you want to run will actually run on it.

For example, bitsandbytes support for non-CUDA backends is still in alpha stage. https://huggingface.co/docs/bitsandbytes/main/en/installation#multi-backend