Building Chromium sounds awful, but I'm not sure I'd really need to buy another computer for that. If I did I'm sure I wouldn't need to spend billions on it, most probably not even millions.

For LLaMa I definitely don't have the computer to build it, I definitely don't have the money to buy the computer, even if I won the lottery tomorrow I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have enough money to buy the hardware, even if I had enough money to buy the hardware I'm still not sure I could actually buy it in reasonable time, nvidia may be backlogged for a while, even if I already had all the hardware I probably wouldn't want to retrain llama, and even if I wanted to retrain it the process is probably going to take weeks if not months at best.

Like I think it's one of those things where the difference in magnitude creates a difference in kind, one can't quite meaningfully compare LLaMa with the Calculator app that Ubuntu ships with.

Fair point about the license, people have different definitions for what "open source" means.

Either way it's worth repeating the experiment imo, tweaking some of these variables (prompt guidance, stockfish strength, starting position, the name of the supposed players, etc.).

[1]: https://www.365chess.com/search_result.php?search=1&p=1&m=8&...

For context this [1] is the board position the model is being prompted on.

There may be more than one weird thing about this experiment, for example giving instructions to the non-instruction tuned variants may be counter productive.

More importantly let's say you just give the model the truncated PGN, does this look like a position where white is a grandmaster level player? I don't think so. Even if the model understood chess really well it's going to try to predict the most probable move given the position at hand, if the model thinks that white is a bad player, and the model is good at understanding chess, it's going to predict bad moves as the more likely ones because that would better predict what is most likely to happen here.

[1]: https://i.imgur.com/qRxalgH.png

Only tiny ones, I don't remember the details now, IE11 ended up providing almost all the same APIs.

Like I'm not sure what this measure means, it's not like 26% of people that would die in the hospital would be made immortal or something.

If you want to look a bit deeper into this I had written another sort of toy implementation that much more closely resembles what the frameworks are actually doing: https://github.com/fabiospampinato/flimsy

I never understood this argument about naming. You need to name the component anyway just to be able to reference it somewhere? You need to give the folder or the file where this component is defined a unique name anyway? Internal nodes technically don't need to be named when using Tailwind, but if for example I'm writing a Slider component, do I not want to name the "handle" thing that can be dragged anyway? How was finding the "handle" word a non-insignificant hurdle? And if I need to talk about this element with a colleague what would you call it anyway?