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.
This whole repository is a bunch of vibe-coded boilerplate that doesn’t include almost any of the core thing it claims to do. The README is generic slop and the “performance metrics” (“Pose Detection Accuracy”; “Person Tracking Accuracy”) appear to be completely invented / hallucinated. In other words, it isn’t real.
Referring to this type of optimization program just as “AI” in an age where nearly everyone will misinterpret that to mean “transformer-based language model” seems really sloppy
Referring to this type of optimization as AI in the age where nearly everybody is looking to fund transformer-based language models and nobody is looking to fund this kind of optimization is just common sense though.
I use "ML" when talking about more traditional/domain specific approaches, since for whatever reason LLMs haven't hijacked that term in the same way. Seems to work well enough to avoid ambiguity.
But I'm not paid by the click, so different incentives.
AI for attempts at general intelligence. (Not just LLMs, which already have a name … “LLM”.)
ML for any iterative inductive design of heuristical or approximate relationships, from data.
AI would fall under ML, as the most ambitious/general problems. And likely best be treated as time (year) relative, i.e. a moving target, as the quality of general models to continue improve in breadth and depth.
Not the person you're replying to, but there are tons of models that aren't neural networks. Triplebyte used to use random forests [1] to make a decision to pass or fail a candidate given a set of interview scores. There are a bunch of others, though, like naive Bayes [2] or k-nearest-neighbors [3]. These approaches tend to need a lot less of a training set and a lot less compute than neural networks, at the cost of being substantially less complex in their reasoning (but you don't always need complexity).
Correct, "an editorially independent online publication launched by the Simons Foundation in 2012 to enhance public understanding of science" shouldn't be doing marketing and contributing to the problem.
Thinking "nearly everyone" has that precise definition of AI seems way more sloppy. Most people haven't even heard of OpenAI and ChatGPT still, but among people who have, they've probably heard stories about AI in science fiction. My definition of AI is any advanced computer processing, generative or otherwise, that's happened since we got enough computing power and RAM to do something about it, aka lately.
You're absolutely right! We're not at a conference with other practicioners in the field, we're on the Internet where anybody with an Internet connection can contribute, and the article we're commenting on didn't take the time to define the term before using it either, so here we are.
>Most people haven't even heard of OpenAI and ChatGPT still
What? I literally don't know a single person anymore who doesn't know what chatGPT is. In this I include several elderly people, a number of older children and a whole bunch of adults with exactly zero tech-related background at all. Far from it being only known to some, unless you're living in a place with essentially no internet access to begin with, chances are most people around you know about chatGPT at least.
For OpenAI, different story, but it's hardly little-known. Let's not grossly understate the basic ability of most people to adapt to technology. This site seems to take that to nearly pathological levels.
You originally mentioned chatGPT, not Nvidia, different story there. Also, for the 37%, sure, if we want to go to the extremes of deeply isolated or subsistence poor communities, or countries run by deeply totalitarian regimes, you'll see plenty of people who know little or nothing about chatGPT, google, etc. I was referring to any normal or even semi-developed context that at last has widespread internet use.
Example: I live in a country that still has a great deal of deep poverty, it's what's called a "developing economy" (sort of an odd phrase since aren't all economies always still developing at all times? but I digress) and even in all but the most deeply poor rural places here, most people frequently use the internet. And I know nobody who doesn't at least know of chatGPT or about how AI can now talk to you like a person would and answer all kinds of questions, let alone not knowing about things like Google and so forth.
This exact kind of sloppy equivocation does seem to be one of the major PR strategies that tries to justify the massive investment in and sloppy rollout of transformer-based language models when large swaths of the public have turned against this (probably even more than is actually warranted)
I know, but can we blame the masses for misunderstanding AI when they are deliberately misinformed that transformers are the universe of AI? I think not!
Web 3(.0) always makes me think of the time around 14 years ago when Mark Zuckerberg publicly lightly roasted my room mate for asking for his predictions on Web 4.0 and 5.0.
Not sure these three links show that "supposedly morally superior western world is entirely bribed and blackmailed". Especially on the "entirely" and "blackmail" parts.
> hm, and how do you feel about Qatar sponsoring higher education in the US?
Focusing on international interference by one state does not reduce the blame that can be thrown at another. There's no limited reserve of blame that requires to be cleverly distributed. The undemocratic influence over public institutions by lobbies, like Qatar's (see Qatargate in Europe) or Israeli-linked ones alike and many more, are the death of our societies.
Surely if Israel is bribing in one direction and Qatar is bribing in the other direction, someone is not getting their money's worth? That is, the final result is either that the "western world is entirely bribed and blackmailed to stand behind Israel" or that they don't stand behind Israel.
I do not believe that “Jews as a collective” are “bribing and blackmailing the whole Western world.”
I do believe that American lobbying groups—including but not limited to those that support Israel—use money as a tool to influence American politics in a manner akin to bribery, including in the few examples I linked about AIPAC.
Your casual conflation “Israel (Jews)”—as if the two were a single group with congruent interests—is misleading, dangerous, and antisemitic. Not all Jews are Israeli, and not all Jews are pro-Israel.
Btw I'm not taking flags off this current post because the article should not have been posted with an archive.org link. Archive links are only ok as submission URLs when the original source isn't accessible.
Discussions with lots of comments are routinely pushed down the stack. dang has commented on that a few times I think. Anyway it's not the subject, just the raw numbers of the activity.
reply