Why do you say Amazon doesn't know what they are doing? I think among those mentioned, they are the best positioned alongside Apple in the grander schema of things.
Also you say meta will never field a competitor to GPT - but they did llama; not as a commercial product, but probably an attempt at it (and failed). Otherwise agreed.
They achieve that by not generating the scene you see, but a lens warped version of 360 degree view. So you turning the other way doesn't delete what's happening / generated on your back side. However I expect it to breakdown if you put a blocker in between and remove it. i.e. go behind a wall and come back, or enter and exit a building. Would be nice to play with.
Why should Apple care about LLMs? They missed the boat on cloud, cryptocurrencies and on search engines. So what? It's not their business - they can just license a good offering and move on to what they do best : Products.
It is basic antitrust practice. If a company starts to control a vertical so much so that they start to exclude others, they get broken up into components and ordered to offer the basic infrastructure service to others. This is how it worked for 100 years (read up on telecoms/fiber; train companies/railroads; heck, even roads used to belong to people in the UK). This is why we have net neutrality - I recommend Tubes by Andrew Blum to go the heart of the matter. Imagine Internet if Google was able to throttle other services if you are not using their own? Here the author is arguing the search index is like infra that needs to be shared for public good. The state will not confiscate it - Google will break it into an independent company, will start paying for it, and let others to pay as well. It's not whitelabeling, stealing and reselling. Gosh - just read a bit people.
Soft deletes in banking are just a Band-Aid to the much bigger problem of auditability. You may keep the original record by soft deleting it, but if you don't take care of amends, you will still lose auditability. The correct way is to use EventSourcing, with each change to an otherwise immutable state being recorded as an Event, including a Delete (both of an Event and the Object). This is even more problematic from a performance sense, but Syncs and Snapshots are for that exact purpose - or you can back the main table with a separate events table, with periodic "reconstruct"s.
> The correct way is to use EventSourcing, with each change to an otherwise immutable state being recorded as an Event, including a Delete (both of an Event and the Object).
Another great (and older) approach is adding temporal information do your traditional database, which gives immutability without the eventual consistency headaches that normally comes with event sourcing. Temporal SQL has their own set of challenges of course, but you get to keep 30+ years of relational DB tooling which is a boon. Event sourcing is great, but we shouldn't forget about other tools in our toolbelt as well!
I am using Temporal tables in SQL Server right now - I agree it's a bit of best of both worlds; but they are also painful to manage. I believe there could be a better solution without sacrificing SQL tools.
Hmm, can we make a MTG style card game with Assembly instructions? RISC is a faster deck with smaller but quicker cards, CISC has heavy hitters but warms up late etc. AVX-512 comes into game and vector arithmetics the bazinga out of the enemies?
This is good writing at its peak. I don't care about the subject matter, but reading it is a joy. The references, the writing style, the pace.. Love it.
Also you say meta will never field a competitor to GPT - but they did llama; not as a commercial product, but probably an attempt at it (and failed). Otherwise agreed.
reply