It looks like they're cramming 32 Apple Silicon SOCs into each server - they're on upright daughterboards attached to both sides of the heatsinks. That's a lotta chips.
HYPER DEMON may be the best known and most extreme exception, it renders 180 degrees in front of you, then renders 180 degrees behind you as a red-tinted overlay, giving full 360 degree awareness if you can wrap your brain around it.
Weird that UE also implements this as purely postprocessing filter. Surely there is more efficient way to render directly using panini projection, or at least something closer to it? Could you do it in vertex shader or something
You can kinda do it in the vertex shader, but the geometry would have to be very finely tessellated for the curve to look right since each individual triangle would still have straight edges. Alternatively you could raytrace the camera instead, which makes it trivial to use any projection, but that's a non-trivial departure from how most engines work. Post-process is the least intrusive way to do it.
I'm not sure what HYPER DEMON does, it's built on a custom engine so they could really specialize into the crazy FOV if they wanted to.
Can also be done in fragment shader with up to six 90 degree cameras. For a fast-paced game doing it in vertex shader is probably fine. I’m not sure what HyperDemon does.
I was also thinking that maybe you could render the center part of image in higher res than outside edges. So that when you apply the projection filter it's less of a problem.
Lately their Windows client has been consistently crashing for me when it tries to auto-run on a fresh boot. It always works the second time, but still, how about getting your shit together before dropping a 30% price increase.
I’ve always had fine experiences with 1Password both on iPhone and my Mac. With how bad Windows 11 is and continues to be, I wonder if your ire is misdirected.
On my work computer (Windows) I’ve had a plethora of stability issues across a variety of programs/applications including ones developed by Microsoft.
If I had a nickel for each actor who recorded a heavy metal album after their 90th birthday then I'd have two nickels, which isn't much but it's weird that it's happened twice.
The great Orsen Welles spring chickened out by only recording heavy metal tracks when he was 70. His excuse for not repeating that at 90 was dying not long after.
It doesn't bother me, it's fantastic that he did this, it was just objectively not very good. I'm glad his other contributions were better, and he's obviously had an illustrious career in general.
Not to mention the investment is on another level. We've got companies with valuations in the hundred-billions talking about raising trillions to buy all of the computers in the world, before establishing whether they can even turn a profit, nevermind upend the economy.
I wonder how many actually beneficial projects will not be financed by investors too scared to try anything risky after the AI buble crashes and burns to the ground. :P
the investments are being made by massively profitable companies (our biggest and brightest ones, the ones that have been carrying the economy for quite some time now, even before "AI"). even just in recent history we have seen companies making large investments and being very unprofitable until they weren't anymore (e.g. Uber). and it is always the same story, everyone is up in arms "this is not sustainable etc..."
whether or not these companies can turn a profit - time will tell. but I am betting that our massively profitable companies (which are biggest spenders of course) perhaps know what they are doing and just maybe they should get the benefit of the doubt until they are proven wrong. but if I had to make a wager and on one side I have google, microsoft, amazon, meta... and on the other side I have bunch of AI bubble people with a bunch of time to predict a "crash" I'd put my money on the former...
The fact that the companies that have already shoveled billions of dollars at this are continuing to do so is equally consistent with AI improvement and adoption stalling as it is with infinite improvement and widespread adoption. Yes, it’s irrational to chase sunk costs - but unlike the VC funds that backed Uber and its competition, may of the players in this game are exposed to public markets, which are not known for being rigorously logical. If you pull back on your AI investments, the markets will punish you - probably vigorously - and if your only concern is the value of your stock options, it is entirely rational for you to act in a way that keeps the market from punishing their value. We’re 3 years in without showing any ROI, and who’s to say we can’t get 3 or 5 or 10 more? Plenty of time to cash out before the eventual reckoning.
There is definitely growing hesitancy in the market, but pulling back at this juncture could set off a full-on race to the bottom, because it would disprove the original point (“all the smart tech companies are all-in, so there must be profit at the end of the tunnel”). Right now, they can point to the skeptics as bears or doomers or whatever. The first big tech company to drop its capex will pierce the aura of invincibility and make the moderate retreat from the exuberant highs of late 2025 look like a blip on the radar.
I'd maybe think twice about assuming Meta knows what they're doing after they just pissed $75 billion up the wall on a Metaverse dream that went nowhere.
Pissed it away, but Zuckerberg is richer than ever and so are his stockholders it seems. I can’t imagine doing it, but also can’t imagine running Meta.
I am certainly not saying that this can’t all come crashing down for the big boys, surely it can. I just am putting a little more weight on them than on people on the internet and doomsdayers hunting for clicks is all
I just keep thinking about SGI and, to an extent, Sun. Couple missteps and a couple innovations in the commodity direction and it will start having a negative effect.
They're trying to kidnap what Anthropic has rightfully stolen!
Jokes and complete lack of sympathy aside, it does complicate the narrative that these small labs are always on the heels of the big labs for pennies on the dollar, if they rely on distilling the big labs models. That means there still has to be big bucks coming from somewhere.
I don't see Z.ai (GLM 5) in the list though. I consider Qwen/Kimi to have a close relationship so I might not be sure but Qwen might be using Kimi data (I have written another comment in more depth)
I still prefer kimi fwiw. It's one of the best models I have witnessed open source and when I tried GLM 5, it really was lacklustre for me on its launchday but I will have to see it for myself now comparing the two maybe as I do see GLM 5 do some good things in benchmarks but we all know how benchmarks should be less trusted.
I still think that there is still some hope in chinese models even after this ie. they aren't completely dependent on the large models seeing GLM 5.
I am seeing an accusation of GLM 5 doing Distillation[0] but I am not seeing any hard evidence of it.
They did, until the automatic copyright laundering machine was invented. Pretty much every piece of GPL code ever written is now being magically transmuted into MIT/BSD or proprietary code, and the FSF has no solution.
Not just volatility but also flip-flopping. Rust was explicitly a contender when they decided to go with Swift 18 months ago, and they've already done a 180 on it despite the language being more or less the same as it was.
they tried swift, it didn't work, and they figured rust was the best remaining option. that's not "flip-flopping" (by which I assume you mean random indecisiveness that leads to them changing their mind for no reason)
Yup, this was not flip-flopping, it was willingness to be open to options, even if it means going back on a decision branch made earlier in the process.
For the Ladybird project, now is the best time to be making a big decision like this, and it's commendable that the project lead was honest to recognize when an earlier attempt was not working, to be able to re-think and come to a better decision. I'm no fan of Rust, but for this project I think most of us would agree it's a better language than Swift for their purpose.
They made a very pragmatic and sensible decision after reviewing Swift that it wouldn't be suitable for their purposes, so they shifted to the next best alternative. I think they reasoned it very well and made a great decision.
reply