So even if AI was not used to write an article, it could "smell" like AI to someone who consumes less of it.

  - https://claytonwramsey.com/blog/prompt/

With enough funds, the trust should be able to both pay for your preservation and grow its balance. You'd even be able to inherit the remaining funds when revived.

Of course in practice there is still the possibility of the trustees being corrupt.

It might also be useful to adjust for inflation going backwards, e.g. everything shows in 2025 dollars.

Since he hadn't used the SD card yet, we were able to restore the files with "TestDisk", a companion tool that ships with PhotoRec. Under "Advanced" there is an "Undelete" tool. This will let you browse the filesystem, find your missing files, and copy them to another drive.

For those old enough to remember, MSDOS came with undelete.exe which worked the same way.

So, hypothetically, if ChatGPT's peak load and their minimum load were a 3× ratio, they'd reallocate 2/3 of their servers to training when it's not peak time.

Doing the same thing inside an individual GPU seems irrelevant to anyone operating at scale when they can approximate the same behavior with entire servers or even entire racks.

It appears, based on my study of the footage on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIRW8bfy4kE, that it could possibly switch which side is the front and the back by just changing the color of the lights. With RGB LEDs that would be pretty easy to do. But my question is, when would that be useful?

It would be neat that it could pull into a driveway and then leave in "reverse", but that doesn't seem like it'd come up that often for a robotaxi.

The back wheels look like they can steer. That's useful for parking in tight spaces.

I do that and then sync that folder with another computer using SyncThing.

If I were to set up the same thing again today, I'd add some automation to automatically keep it in sync with github as well as automate the servers so that they'd attempt to pull from both on every deploy.

I share this as an idea for those who need an emergency or backup deploy mechanism.

We could call this RAID -1.

You'd need some accounting to ensure that the drives are eventually consistent, but based on the graphs of the issue it seems like you could keep the queue of pending writes in RAM for the duration of the slowdown.

Of course, it's quite likely that there will be correlated failures, as the two EBS volumes might end up on the same SAN and set of physical drives. Also it doesn't seem worth paying double for this.

At work we've been using restic to back up to B2. Restic does a deduplicating backup, every time, so there's no difference between a "full" and an "incremental" backup.

I don't imagine the overhead will be too bad though, so it may decrease latency while keeping throughput essentially the same.

Of course you'll want to benchmark on your specific load. For example, at my day job it'd make no difference because we don't use threads, each Passenger worker has just one thread and handles one request at a time.

Given a sufficiently bad compiler bug anything is possible, but I think given that it's trying to minimize the size of an input that gives a particular output I don't think it's likely to explore distant branches.

  unless person_id =~ /^\d+$/
    abort "Bad person ID"
  end
  sql = "select * from people where person_id = #{person_id}"

This is easy to reproduce with the web interface, at least sometimes [0]. It start out by saying it's not a valid date and then as it's explaining why it isn't it realizes its mistake and sometimes corrects itself.

[0] https://chat.openai.com/share/37490c9f-81d6-499f-b491-116536...