First it was "we're only against illegal immigration, we want people to do it the right way".
Now it's "we need to limit the volume" and "don't want to get rid of the truly exceptional immigration".
Forgive me if I am skeptical, especially in a world where ICE is rounding up classic "exceptional" immigrants like biology researchers, or South Korean experts setting up a factory.
I think generally, games should move to using the GPU less for graphics and more for computation. Not just AI computation - those fancy GPUs are a big resource that simulation games could be taking advantage of and just... aren't.
(Yes, this is a Paradox callout. Give me less fancy particle effects in Vic3 and use the GPU for computing pop updates faster!)
(Probably the biggest barrier to this is the lack of a convenient C++/C#-level cross-manufacturer compute API. Vulkan is a bit too low-level for game devs to work with, OpenCL kind of sucks, and CUDA is NVIDIA-only.)
The point is that the correlation between doing well on these tasks and doing well on other (directly useful) tasks is well established for humans, but not well established for LLMs.
If the employees' job is taking IQ tests, then this is a great measure for employers. Otherwise, it doesn't measure anything useful.
Oh it measures a useful metric, absolutely, as aspects of an IQ test validate certain types of cognition. Those types of cognition have been found to map to real-world employment of the same.
If an AI is so incapable of performing admirably on an IQ test for those types of cognition, then one thing we're certainly measuring is that it's incapable of handling that 'class' of cognition if the conditions change in minuscule and tiny ways.
And that's quite important.
For example, if the model appears to perform specific work tasks well, related to a class of cognition, then cannot do the same category of cognitive tasks outside of that scope, we're measuring lack of adaptability or true cognitive capability.
It's definitely measuring something. Such as, will the model go sideways with small deviations on task or input? That's a nice start.
That is not how the "dark ages" came to be, and that is not how the Church functioned.
The Church didn't think witchcraft worked and saw belief in its existence as heresy! Institutionally-backed witch hunts were mostly an Early Modern phenomenon, not Medieval!
So I guess you need one? Because the dark ages came upon Europe after the fall of Rome and the following rise of power of the church back in 500-1k AD.
In the time 1100++ the church however started to be a force for progress, and that's the time y'all seem to think about.
The "rise of power of the church" was not the cause of and did not exacerbate the collapse of Roman state power in the Early Medieval period. It was in fact in the Early Medieval that the Church was most instrumental in propagating and preserving knowledge.
Since you seem allergic to sources, here's a pretty good layman-aimed overview of actual up-to-date historical view of the arrival of the "Dark Ages" (i.e. the Early Medieval).
So you attribute the golden era of Church influence, around the 12th century onwards, as the "not bad medieval era", yet the Church is somehow evil and not the new barbarian kings?
I never said the church was evil? Do you need help? You seem to be hallucinating a lot and making up random shit about strangers you know nothing about. And after throwing a casual glance at your comment history, that seems to be a common theme with you. Seeking help would likely be advisable.
In a world of US and China being at odds with each other and controlling a GPU factory each, AI for Europe, Japan, Australia, etc becomes a game of who can kiss ass better and hoping the master doesn't change the rules further.
There should be more places that can produce enough energy and have AI leverage.
> The way to reduce the risk is to diversify. Taiwan with a China risk and the US with a "US risk" is much safer than either alone.
Not really. Taiwan with a China risk means China has pressure to not change the status quo.
US with a US risk means they have a vested interest to facilitate China's imperialistic agenda to try dethrone Taiwan as a competitor in the chip market.
That, coupled with the imbecile tariff war, underlines the unacceptable risk presented by the "US risk".
I’ve yet to see an EV that doesn’t have some sort of flush handle design. My understanding is that it improves aerodynamics and I’m sure a secondary reason is “Tesla did it first” and the high tech aesthetic that EVs are expected to have.
"Everyone agrees - this is non-partisan" is itself a piece of rhetoric designed to create that reality in a situation where it's in doubt. If everyone actually agreed you wouldn't need to emphasize it.
Now it's "we need to limit the volume" and "don't want to get rid of the truly exceptional immigration".
Forgive me if I am skeptical, especially in a world where ICE is rounding up classic "exceptional" immigrants like biology researchers, or South Korean experts setting up a factory.