31–40 of 99 posts
OP's alt text makes it clear that by "Galapagos Island" they mean Vancouver. I assumed that this was some sort of local nickname, but all of the references to "Galápagos of Canada" I could find are talking about Haida Gwaii instead.
OP's alt text makes it clear that by "Galapagos Island" they mean Vancouver. I assumed that this was some sort of local nickname, but all of the references to "Galápagos of Canada" I could find are talking about Haida Gwaii instead.
Yeah I was like “woa a PGConf on the galapagos, i gotta get my ass to one if those!”
Who cares about AI, I wanted to read about living in Galapagos
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t understand what these comments add to the discussion, you always see these and it’s just noise at this point.
They add nothing, meaningless anecdotes. I was kind of riffing on that.
A lot of the crazy ideas seem to have melted away in the face of massive context sizes. Today, I can put roughly a megabyte of utf8 text into my system prompt before things start to get weird. That is a massive amount of information even if we are being sloppy with it. You can read The Hobbit and the first Harry Potter book cover-to-cover and still have room to spare. I would deeply struggle to develop a world model…
You’re forgetting that keeping the context small is better economically and delivers better results.
This seems like the beginnings of AI psychosis, tbh.
A lot of the crazy ideas seem to have melted away in the face of massive context sizes. Today, I can put roughly a megabyte of utf8 text into my system prompt before things start to get weird. That is a massive amount of information even if we are being sloppy with it. You can read The Hobbit and the first Harry Potter book cover-to-cover and still have room to spare. I would deeply struggle to develop a world model…
If only. There is a huge difference between "Gives good responses/can easily spot things within N context size" and "Technically works but sucks within N context size", almost all models basically become cave-people once you go beyond 50% of the "supported" context size, meaning while they may technically work with 1 million output tokens, those last 500K tokens are gonna be massively "dumber" than the first 500k tokens.
> In general, when I talk to software folks about testing, I'm coming from such a different place that they immediately look at me like I'm an alien, so let's talk about how we tested at this hardware company I worked for, Centaur, which informs my biases about how I like to work. Some of the things that we did that were or are unorthodox in the software world are:
> Hired dedicated QA / test engineers, with testing being a first-class career path on par with being a developer - No code review by default - Virtually no hand-written tests - Constant testing via what programmers sometimes called property based testing, randomized testing, fuzzing, etc., although we just called those tests (hand-written tests were called "hand tests"). - Large regeression test suite (3 months wall clock to execute on compute farm) - No unit tests
Anybody here tried that (or a similar) approach? Especially going all-in on property based testing and fuzzing with no unit tests.
I tried that approach somewhere before and the initial results were promising, but ran into political issues so the idea was canned.
This blog is quite unreadable for 27/32" monitors.
There is a reasone we use left and right margin/padding. This blog is quite unreadable for 27/32" monitors.