• 1 Post
  • 623 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: March 22nd, 2024

help-circle



  • They seem to have held back the “big” locally runnable model.

    It’s also kinda conservative/old, architecture wise: 16-bit weights, sliding window attention interleaved with global attention. No MTP, no QAT (yet), no tightly integrated vision, no hybrid mamba like Qwen/Deepseek, nothing weird like that. It’s especially glaring since we know Google is using an exotic architecture for Gemini, and has basically infinite resources for experimentation.

    It also feels kinda “deep fried” like GPT-OSS to me, see: https://github.com/ikawrakow/ik_llama.cpp/issues/1572

    it is acting crazy. it can’t do anything without the proper chat template, or it goes crazy.


    IMO it’s not very interesting, especially with so many other models that run really well on desktops.


  • it’s a form of private journalism, private opinion, and private art

    But without any of the liability hazard.

    This is my issue: the big platforms having their cake and eating it. In one breath, they claim to be little open-platform garage startups that can’t possibly be responsible for the content of their users; they’re just a utility. They need protection from Congress. In another breath, they’re the stewards of generations and children, the only ones responsible enough to tame the internet’s criminality. All while making trillions.

    They want to be “private content” protected from the government? Fine. Treat them like it, legally.












  • They’re selectively asking for verification to do it. That’s mixed, because:

    • They’ll only ask to verify “suspicious” accounts. So all the bots that “behave” are going to stay, which is what the bots will now optimize for.

    • Verification will become another form of selective enforcement. Say the wrong then, and you get either verify or get banned.

    • As for the methods, see for yourself:

    When confirming that there is a human behind an account, we prefer third-party tools that keep a distance between verification and Reddit itself. Any system we use will not expose your real-world identity to Reddit nor your Reddit username or activity to any third party. There are a handful of ways to do this, and I’m sure there will be more. Each have their tradeoffs:

    • Passkeys (which are well supported by Apple, Google, YubiKey, and various password managers) - These are lightweight, require a human to do something, and don’t require your ID. The tradeoff is that there is no proof of individuality or anything other than “a human probably did something.” Nevertheless, it’s a great starting point.
    • Third-party biometric services - For example, World ID (yes, the Orb company, though they have non-Orb solutions as well). This technology unlocks proof-of-individual without requiring your name, government ID, or a centralized database. I think the internet needs verification solutions like this, where your account information, usage data, and identity never mix.
    • Third-party government ID services - In some countries, such as the UK and Australia, governments require us to use these. These are the least secure, least private, and least preferred. When we are forced to do this, we design the integrations so that we never actually see your ID information, so your Reddit data cannot be tied to you.

    Draw your own conclusion.

    But my take? It’s the worst of everything: Only the most primitive, obvious bots get banned. “Transparent,” sycophantic bots will all stay on Reddit, and get even stealthier. Rebellious human users will get hit with verification, at the whim of whatever opaque algorithm determines they’re “bot-like,” which is a fantastic recipe for censorship without the appearance of doing so.

    And this is all if you take Spez at his word. There’s a lot of history suggesting you should not.




  • Go go China !

    Bops the tankie.

    Like, I have a Chinese LLM loaded right this second and follow them closely, but holy moly. Curb your enthusiasm.

    Anyway, OpenAI has plenty of compute to train a Sora 2 if they want, but apparently they don’t. My guess is some combination of:

    • They couldn’t figure out a more efficient architecture, like you speculated. I buy that. OpenAI’s development is way more conservative than you’d think, and video generation is inherently intense, especially if Sora 1 is the baseline.

    • …Maybe they looked at metrics, saw Sora is mostly used for spam, scams, or worse, and pulled the plug for liability reasons?

    • They’re focusing on short-term profitability, as other commenters mentioned.