Academia has stricter rules than regular society.

Science papers of a phd level must contain:

1. one or more novel insights

2. a long list of citations to contextualize them and

3. some work to prove that the insights are in fact meaningful

---

In this context, consider a prompt based diffusion model which, when asked, will happily produce a few pictures of a horse in orbit. You then tell it "silly robot, horses can't breathe in space" to which it adds the necessary space suit in a follow up image.

That image is twice plagiarized:

1. the model did not come up with the original idea of putting a horse in space, nor with insight that horses need a space suit

2. the model failed to cite where it pulled the "horse" and "space" concepts from.

It merely did the work (3) to combine the concepts using the user provided insight.

---

The implied accusation here is that OpenAI used the insights from an existing prompt to train a new model that was able to one shot "a horse race in space" picture, and they were all wearing space suits.

This is still academic plagiarism, even if you disagree that all LLM outputs are.

hmmmmmmmmmm

Can't do that on more recent Ubiquiti hardware. Your boos don't bother me, I've seen what makes you cheer!

Some time after IE6 and Firefox and before Chrome, the default policy switched from "prompt" to "accept".

GDPR was an attempt to restore that default behavior, however no browser did so. I'd've guessed Mozilla could be convinced to revert, but Google presumably paid them enough to look the other way.

Ubiquiti sucks nowadays but Microtik is simply insane.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGM-148_Javelin#Seeker

It was featured in one of the Modern Warfare games from around 20 years ago, and I looked it up because back then, I called bs on the fire & forget aspect.

Please sign up to continue

Yes. IP addresses by themselves are not PII and may be logged indefinitely. It's only after you start correlating them with other shit that you're collecting that they become subject to GDPR.

Same for cookies really. If you *only* operate a shopping cart, you don't have to display a cookie notice for "only technically required cookies". The point of the cookie notice is to dark pattern users into granting more access or just to annoy them enough that they continue not caring about privacy.

Citation needed

https://silicon-valley.fandom.com/wiki/The_box

If pensions invest in the stock market, then they are de-facto acting as a bank. And last I checked, in the land of the free, you get to withdraw your 401k should you vibe with the decision to do so [please don't do this based on this post alone].

Cause if that's the case, I see no reason for a government bailout should things go south. Nobody's pension would be affected by some private investor losing money on a bad investment.

But if that's not the case, then someone somewhere along the chain is acting as a bank, subject to a vibe-driven run.

The good news is that these folks seem to be in possession of a vibe-rator.

What Justine probably meant was an apples to oranges comparison: in userspace, you can sometimes add constraints that allow for a faster algorithm whereas the cpu generally has to assume the worst.

That being said, if you look through this thread you'll find similar issues with OP's phrasing. A fine engineer / hacker, but too much 4chan troll in my book.

iFerrari XS

It's 140% better than the previous Ferrari Enzo

And 20% thinner

With a brand new Magnesium case

It's the fastest Ferrari we've ever built.

What theorem is that?

The multiplication of any two integers below a certain size (called "words") fits in a "double word" and the naive multiplication algorithm needs to store the inputs, an accumulator and at most another temporary for a grand total of 6*word_size

Sure, you can technically "stream" carry-addition (which is obvious from the way adders are chained in ALU-101) and thus in a strict sense addition is O(1) memory but towards your final point:

> Theory is important, but engineering is also important.

In practice, addition requires unbounded memory as well (the inputs). And it's definitely compute-unbounded, if your inputs are unbounded.

I dislike the term "we muddle along". IEEE 754 has well specified error bars and cases, and so does all good data science. LLMs do not, or at least they do not expose them to the end user

So then, how exactly do we go about proving that the result of chaining prompts is within a controllable margin of error of the intended result? Because despite all the specs, numerical stability is the reason people don't write their own LAPACK.

... the answer would depend on which street corner you asked.

> people seem so unaware of how idiosyncratic their preferences are

Yes, they are. They also tend to state that "most people" agree with them. This is called subjectivity.