> They’re nondeterministic at a fine level, but can be “deterministic” at a more general level: e.g. you might know that one model will always return properly formatted json when asked. That might not be true of the replacement, even if it is in general “better” and cheaper.
This isn't true. Even Sol messes up JSON formatting for me on occasion.
Do not delude yourself into thinking these things are reliable. They are not.
Is nobody using structured outputs? They use constrained decoding at the generation stage to ensure the probability of tokens that would break the format are set to 0. I kinda figured everyone was doing this at this point.
Most serious providers are now supporting structured outputs in a reasonable way for all model configs. But for example on ollama structured outputs are still incompatible with tool calling and with reasoning
If you use a large enough volume, you will know this isn't fully reliable. You might get json, and it might not match what the model actually sent because the last layer cut it up to match what you want. At the end, not json, or json but not really matching what the model wanted, it's sort of the same issue: when you use them you HAVE to assume they can have a brain fart. That's fine, just code around it.
We use structured output and To my knowledge it has never failed (millions of data points). There seem to be two classes of people: those doing productive work with LLMs, and those who only get replies insulting their mothers…
Point is if humans need to struggle with something to build neural pathways, character etc. then getting better at playing an instrument is as good at that as anything, even if it has very little economic utility (I thought that part was obvious). Programming might soon have equally little utility.
You have it backwards, an intrusive linked list is a linked list that is embedded in another data structure. The classic example is a linked list whose elements live on the stack.
The article is wrong too, or at least using the term over-specifically.
GP points out that what the article calls "intrusive linked list" is a regular linked list. Wikipedia for instance gives the canonical linked list example of a struct with one embedded integer and a next link and of course does not call it "intrusive linked list".
"Intrusive" got popular with C++ intrusive pointers, and that is where the article gets is misinformation from.
And of coursed the web jockeys downvote the correct objection since they have no clue about data structures, history, logic or basic reading skills.
>"Intrusive" got popular with C++ intrusive pointers
It got popular with C++'s attempts at type safety. In particular, std::list lets you accomplish the machinery without macros, and allowing for polymorphism (heterogeneous lists of derived instances) without weird type casts and overallocation tricks, but at the cost of another level of indirection.
> which is the butt of every government inefficiency complaint
I always find DMV (or whatever your state's equivalent) inefficiency arguments to be hilarious. They're run extremely efficiently for the government. They suck use because of that (long wait times, most important stuff gets shipped by mail weeks later).
> I always find DMV (or whatever your state's equivalent) inefficiency arguments to be hilarious. They're run extremely efficiently for the government.
It's real funny until they pass a law that says you need an ID to vote and then immediately close the only DMV anywhere near where you live specifically because they want to keep you and your neighbors from voting (https://www.yahoo.com/news/feds-called-investigate-alabama-d...)
Ah yes, the good 'ol "link to an article as proof of my claims, the article then contains multiple links to proof of the article's claims, and the multiple links, when followed, all end up leading to 404 pages with no content." Well, that convinces me.
I've found that the speed of the DMV seems to vary wildly by state, and possibly even city and location, based on anecdotes.
Earlier this year, my license was expiring and I decided to get a Real ID. I was able to create an appointment on the Oregon DMV website. It was set for 10 AM. I got there at 9:50 and checked in. My name was called up at only a couple minutes after my appointment time. I gave my documents and paid, then was instructed to wait by the camera area for my picture. I had barely sat down when my name was called. They took my picture, and I was all set. I was out the door by 10:15. Pretty sure my ID then came in the mail only about a week later.
So when people talk about long waits, I don't know what they're talking about. Maybe their state just sucks.
In Oregon the DMV is state run with all the benefits that go with it. the DMV is quiet, calm, smooth, and moves quickly even during lunch hour. When I moved back the DMV had an easy process (that staff helped me complete) to update my info and register everything + get a photo ID. I was in an out over lunch (with lunch still included) and everything was mailed in a week.
In Washington the DMV is split between licensing people and licensing cars/etc (2 locations), plus separate emissions testing locations. It's all contracted out with private companies providing staff and services. Last cycle, it took me over 3 hours to update my ID and registration.
Later, one of these places overcharged me on registration of a new car bought out of state. One near my last apartment in Seattle was running a credit card fraud scheme. Some may not have staff when you need them.
Turns out that when you support and fund the program, the government can do a pretty good job. You can, in fact, pay someone to care.
It can also depend on where you are within the state.
When I lived in Colorado the smart move in Denver was to start lining up about an hour before the DMV opened (for driver licenses, car registration never had much of a line). Out in the mountains, I was able to just walk in just about anytime. The longest wait I had in the small mountain town I lived in was when the one lady working there was doing a driving test, and I had to wait 10 minutes for her to get back.
Living in Washington, they allow private businesses to register vehicles, so transferring a car was normally a 5 minute job. Never did bother to switch my DL, so can't comment on that.
Now I'm up in BC where vehicle and driver licensing is handled by the state owned insurance monopoly. Any agent, private or public, can register your car. You can get the licensing done at public insurance offices, or at provincial service centres that handle all sorts of business by appointment or walk in. It all works pretty well.
> They're run extremely efficiently for the government. They suck use because of that (long wait times, most important stuff gets shipped by mail weeks later).
The government is efficient without qualification.
People just like to complain and Reagan was charismatic so we’re cursed with this government inefficiency meme. We’re programmed to repeat it even when providing counter examples.
The overwhelming majority of the waiting I do in life is at the hands of private organizations who are unwilling to invest in proper staffing.
There will no doubt be replies to the contrary but to them I say they have identified corruption, not inefficiency. When the government doesn’t work it is by choice.
People also confuse that government programs have to prioritize many things over and above cost in ways that businesses don't.
The government has to (and should have to) provide the same service to everyone, everywhere. Businesses would never bother putting a DMV office in a small remote county because of cost, even if it was unfair and inconvenient to people living there. Government does do that, and it doesn't look great on a balance sheet.
I live in Misissippi. The last time I had to go in-person for a license renewal I was in and out in less than 10 minutes because they had automated kiosks. Then again, Mississippi is a progressive state.
Yes, I'm sure every person in Mississippi has the same super expedient interaction as a HNer when they have to visit to get their ID documents. I bet you even live next door to the DMV so your travel time was negligible.
The point of the government doing it is that it has to be able to service those people who live maximally far from a DMV (say 60 minutes each way by car), who can't drive there, who have to weigh losing pay to take the time to travel there, who have below average intelligence, who are functionally illiterate (because Mississippi created A LOT of those before their recent education reforms), who "can't use technology", who forgot to bring whatever specific document qualifies for Real ID, etc.
You are just repeating the same meme that every Republican says.
There is a huge difference between a guaranteed Constitutional right that this country fought a Civil War for... and a privilege such as getting on a plane or driving a car.
Assume that I know everything you know about this topic and still arrived at a different conclusion.
I'm personally pretty excited about Tangled (and ATProto in general), but I do have to caution that I've had some performance issues and some technical ones with hosting my own 'knot' and 'spindle' services
Some may express societal challenges in ways that inappropriately and wrongly infer intentionality. We can acknowledge their point while strongly disagreeing with their characterization.
There are significant societal impacts of this AI buildout. Some are concerned externalities weigh more heavily on the poor and marginalized. I think state wide data center holds are part of this civil discourse.
I'd prefer we have more conservative pollution standards along with a reasonable tax on AI use that helps mitigate externalities. That's hard. Reasonable people can have fierce disagreements on what market interventions are indicated, and how extensive they should be.
no, you don't have to make up some non-idiotic argument that's kinda vaguely like the dumb one and substitute it in there. it's not necessary! nobody's making you do it and there's no benefit to anybody from doing it!
What's interesting is that they are trying to make a larger political point, but after boiling away all the nuance into such an aggressive and misguided statement, it makes me not want to engage at all.
Is there a term for this? Ensnarkification? I see it on X and bsky all the time.
I don't know if they truly believe that persons using CC are racist (like they examined the thing logically from bottom to top and came back with that conclusion) or if it's the new Goodwin --pulling the emergency brakes and damn the consequences.
It's as though people want to find the most dubious of non-existent connections and use that as leverage to besmirch something they don't like.
There are many things one can do where a person has no awareness of the tenuous connection but where you can have someone go back and then ex-post make that connection and declare that thing or person racist. It's a tactic.
Like one _could_ make the argument that factory automation in China is racist because without automation they would have to import labor from (some non-Chinese population). However, the Chinese never began automation with the intention of being racist.
It used to be the case that you would see someone posting under an avatar like that and you would dismiss their argument right away without even reading it.
I'm happily in both depending on what it is. Even Sol / Fable cannot do some truly novel stuff and if you rely on it too heavily you get detached from the underlying systems to the point that it's both uncomfortable and detrimental.
I think you're misreading it (I did the first time as well). GP is saying "graph thinking" was not as common in 1996 as it is today, so is saying the opposite of it being a declining skill.
As someone working in this space: unless they're a very big player with resources to create custom hardware, afaik there's no way to actually prevent the GPU host from seeing the request content. There's no "secure enclave" that sits between a CPU and the GPU, the decrypted payload must necessarily hit system RAM, as would the output. They are, at best, running in TEE VMs which are also pretty horribly broken and don't provide the security that they say they do.
Specifically, the intel page says "Intel® Xeon® 6 processors with Performance‑cores support Intel® TDX Connect technology, enabling confidential computing across the CPU and connected devices including GPUs, Smart NICs, and storage." which you are claiming do not exist....
Not trying to be an evangelist for them, but they seem to pretty open about their tech stack which is hugely differentiating compared to every other AI company....
This isn't true. Even Sol messes up JSON formatting for me on occasion.
Do not delude yourself into thinking these things are reliable. They are not.
reply