Oh yes, I remember reading the am17an report about that! It was incredibly detailed and definitely not just a single-sentence declarative summary of Haidt's "The Anxious Generation."
It is not even like I disagree with the gist. Sadly, my feelings don't decide fact... or so the lesswrong weirdos keep telling me. If it was incredibly damaging, it would be incredibly easy to show. Instead, it's some poorly picked cherries by someone (Haidt) who should know better. Worse still, the best you can get from the data is a "maybe. I mean it is not immediately dis-proven... which is a start."
The kind of person who doesn’t believe this is bad for children, is the same kind of person who would believe Big Tobacco sponsored studies about how cigarettes don’t cause cancer in the 80s. For the data driven like yourself, I remember a Jeff Bezos anecdote, “When the data and the anecdotes disagree, the anecdotes are usually right"
Try spending time with a phone addicted teen and you might have a more sympathetic take.
That's on me, I came in hot and you came back hotter. Apologies.
Let me take the temp down and ask it a different way. You don't feel weird saying there is an epidemic happening to our kids (again, something I’m at least partially convinced of), but we can't really put together a narrative one-tenth as cohesive as what we have for the efficacy of gray-market/off-label Ozempic?
I don't feel weird about it because it's a trillion dollar business, and it's in their best interests to muddy the waters regarding any cohesive argument. But when you just look at these things from first principles, boasting about 1 billion hours of shorts watched in a month or something ridiculous like that, AI generated content on loop, teens/adults getting into status/envy games on these platforms, the "connection" aspect looks like a very small positive.
I don't think your example of off-label Ozempic is isomorphic - the more apt comparison is one I already gave: Why did it take us 30 years to realize cigarettes cause 400k deaths a year? The answer is because there was simply huge amounts of money involved.
They must really be having a bad time if Anthropic of all labs is willing to share their infra details. On the actual precision bug, it is quite unfortunate on FMA side, numerical issues are often deeply bewildering and no AI can solve them (yet.) Also goes to show, if you are in a super crunch situation like this one (competitor literally eating your lunch every day), you need humans to understand what went wrong and even then it can take weeks to rectify.
It was true for models up to o3, but there isn't enough public info to say much about GPT-5. Grok 4 seems to be the first major model that scaled RL compute 10x to near pre-training effort.
The point is those kernels exist already, you can just use them off the shelf. In the case where you're trying to write a production grade kernel without operating at that part of the stack... well good luck with that.
There’s a GitHub link which is open from last year, about the missing license in ollama. They have not bothered to reply, which goes to show how much they care. Also it’s a YC company, I see more and more morally bankrupt companies making the cut recently, why is that?
Seriously, people astroturfing this thread by saying ollama has a new engine. It literally is the same engine that llama.cpp uses and georgi and slaren maintain! VC funding will make people so dishonest and just plain grifters
No one is astroturfing. You cannot run any model with just GGML. It's a tensor library. Yes, it adds value, but I don't think that saying that ollama also does is unfair.
reply