It is stupid to fixate on the specific number $1000.
It's just a placeholder for wharever number makes sense in the clearly expressed context. Either substitute $5000 or $10000, or substitute whatever location or demographic you imagined (since none was specified) for some other location or demographic. You can't start in the US and vacation in Venice for $1000, but you absolutely can vacation somewhere else and/or somehow else.
Or, just pretend they said whatever other number you like, because the specific amount was not material to the point they were expressing.
No it’s not obvious. I was pointing out that it’s not cheap to go on vacation. I think you are the one missing the point. Several points up GP says “1000 to go on vacation?”
The conversation was about the expense of going on vacation. You then said that you went on a business trip (not vacation), and that the cheapest fare plus a cheap hotel was more than $1000. They replied that they went on vacation (more relevant than business travel) for $100. That is, they supplied a counter-data-point to your data point.
Then they pointed out that both your data point and theirs were anecdotes (I guess that's what a single data point is), rather than actual data.
So their point was that they have experience that contradicts yours, and that neither their experience nor yours does anything to advance the conversation, because they're both just anecdotes.
As I said, I thought that was very obvious from their post.
So, we're back at Jensson's post from a day ago, with both you and IAmBroom having supplied contradictory anecdotes, and neither having supplied any data. So, do you want to add some data?
Actually, the conversation was more generally about the mentality of chronically broke people, but as often happens on HN, one reply fixated on a single word (or number in this case), lost the forest for the trees, and derailed the whole topic.
I get that anecdotes aren’t data, but the way it was phrased came off a bit snarky. I’m happy to share my experience without turning this into a debate.
How effective would Gelsinger be at returning after the then previous CEO took the company in a totally different path and practically trashed Gelsinger’s original plan?
I highly doubt the US government will let Intel sink. I think one way or another they will bail them, either by emergency funds or through government contracts, and keep the lights on until they turn things around. For the same reasons they didn’t let Boeing die out.
> For the same reasons they didn’t let Boeing die out.
Right — so that extends the time window for pillaging, and means that you can raid future taxpayer money, not just current assets. But there’s still no “turn around,” it’s just different flavors of getting paid massively to go down with the ship.
Elsewhere in the thread, someone talked about how h100’s each have 80GB of vram and cost 20000 dollars.
The largest chatgpt models are maybe 1-1.5tb in size and all of that needs to load into pooled vram. That sounds daunting, but a company like open ai has countless machines that have enough of these datacenter grade gpus with gobs of vram pooled together to run their big models.
Inference is also pretty cheap, especially when a model can comfortably fit in a pool of vram. Its not that the pool of gpus spool up each time someone sends a request, but whats more likely is that there’s a queue to f requests from someone like chatgpts 700 million users, and the multiple (I have no idea how many) pools of vram keep the models in their memory to chew through that nearly perpetual queue of requests.
When I tried to buy quercetin from Vitacost recently, they dropped a second, unwanted item into my cart. I noped right out of there. Turns out they were acquired by notorious lawbreakers Kroger.
Maybe for a big llm, but if they add some gpu cores and added a magnitude or 2 more unified memory to their i devices, or shoehorned m socs into high tier iDevices (especially as their lithography process advances), image generation becomes more viable, no? Also, I thought I read somewhere that apple wanted to infer simpler queries locally and switch to datacenter inference when the request was more complicated.
If they approach things this way, and transistor progress continues linearly (relative to the last few years) maybe they can make their first devices that can meet these goals in… 2-3 years?
The judge is claiming that because the use is of the books are “so transformative,” the usage of these books to train an llm is fair use.
I’m not familiar with the facts of the case and IANAL, and its late, but how did the plaintiffs determine their books were being used for training of the llm? Was the model spitting out language that was similar or verbatim to their works?
> Maybe I'm mistaken but shouldn't the source come from a legal source
There is no such thing as a legal or illegal source, only legal or illegal uses.
If the use was legal, then it doesn't matter where you got the material from. Similary if you got the material via more conventional means it would still be copyright infringement if you used it in an illegal way.
> Again if I download the entire works of HBO tv shows, then make a "transformative" version on my iphone, how can that be considered fair use?
That wouldn't be considered transformative. In this context "transformative" means you transformed it into something with a different purpose than the original.
However if you for example made a video essay for youtube talking about the themes (or whatever) of the tv show including clips from it, that would be transformative and probably fine.
> However if you for example made a video essay for youtube talking about the themes (or whatever) of the tv show including clips from it, that would be transformative and probably fine.
Then I get a free pass when downloading the entire disney collection but making a youtube essay video for each downloaded item? So long as I don't seed of course.
I'm not trying to be argumentative, but surely you can see how that will never pass muster.
downloading is not the illegal part. distribution is the illegal part.
if you watch a video from a site that has a Disney movie on there, the site distributing the content to you is doing the illegal part. You are not doing anything illegal (AFAIK).
>The judge is claiming that because the use is of the books are “so transformative,” the usage of these books to train an llm is fair use.
"you're doing something so critical to our (country's) success, that we're ok to waive copyright. I get that, if the US doesn't do it, then China will(is).
Interesting judgement, and it's implications, if you are correct haha.
So wait… is whisper transcription really all that slow locally on a M3 Macbook? It’s been a while since I used whispercpp, but I seem to remember it taking maybe 20 minutes on a comparatively slowpoke (and powerhungry) i5 12600k for maybe 40 minutes of audio; it might take less time on a faster m chip (maybe I’m imagining mobile apple silicon to be more performant than even desktop intel cpus), even less if there support built in for the built in gpu cores and other ai optimized silicon?
