or maybe it is a bad thing, because right now the model is "throw it against the wall and see what sticks or how many billions we need to make it stick"?
It's funny how for MOND we cant accept that it has some unknowns yet but we are more than willing to accept the FULL UNKNOWN Dark Matter. it's easy. put "Dark" in front of something and you don't have to explain it at all, no matter that something else explains at least 60-70% instead of 0.
Dark matter is invisible, but it isn't magic. It is not significantly different from neutrinos. No one seriously denies the existence of neutrinos nowadays, even though they are invisible (i.e. they don't interact electromagnetically).
Dark matter is actually a very parsimonious theory. None of the laws of physics have to change to accommodate it, unlike with MOND. We may not see it, but it has to move around and affect normal matter in predictable patterns consistent with our current understanding of physics. If it doesn't, then the theory is wrong and may need some revision (which may be a dark matter + MOND hybrid).
In parallel with the research that attempts to find the properties of dark matter that best describe our observations is research that attempt to find what other properties it may have. It is a new particle? Can it interact in ways other than gravity? We didn't find anything, but the universe is under no obligation to make things easy for us.
One possible idea called the "nightmare scenario" is that dark matter is made of particles that only interacts gravitationally. It is a perfectly fine theory, maybe the cleanest one, but unfortunately, it would mean that we may never be able to detect these particles because gravity is so weak that the required detectors would be way beyond our technological abilities.
We make a similar guess for the stuff that is in the center of Earth. We measure local gravity and speed of sound velocity, and we guess here is liquid, here is solid, here is this rock, here is this another rock [1]. See for example https://www.livescience.com/64943-nobody-understands-the-gia... nobody has seen them, we guess they are there.
Dark matter is another guess. We guess there is more matter in galaxies than what the telescopes show. We can compare the amount of mater guessed from galaxy rotation with other measurements. In this case they compare it with the gravity between a few galaxies.
Nobody is happy that we don't know what dark mater is. There are a few theories, but none of them has enough experimental support. More lack of confirmed details in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Composition
Dark matter is not another Guess. is no guess at all. its the same as saying the center of the earth is made of Dark Core. and when someone proposed liquid core, there would be papers how a liquid core doesnt explain 100 %, and neither does rock or solid so Dark Core it is because it's sIMpLer to have just one Dark Something than 3 different somethings to explain anything.
The fact that there are tentatives to identify what it might be does not ammegliorate the fact that at it's core (pun intented) Dark matter is something to make equations fit without any other thought behind it or whether there might be several things behind it or god forbid that we juddge the equations themselves. I mean we got relativity because of a minor discord with newtonian Laws. (the orbit of Mercury). just a tiny percentage of obeservable behaviour at that time but it was a different time. a time where you could bring down the existing science of the day for a tiny percentage and now we accept 90% observation disaccordance (dark energy+dark matter) with what the equation require.
> at it's core (pun intented) Dark matter is something to make equations fit without any other thought behind it or whether there might be several things behind it or god forbid that we juddge the equations themselves
Another way to interpret dark matter is that we can observe something using several different ways, but all those ways use gravity. When trying to observe this something using electromagnetism, we see nothing. It doesn't seem so crazy then to hypothesize that this something only interacts with gravity, and not electromagnetism.
> I mean we got relativity because of a minor discord with newtonian Laws. (the orbit of Mercury).
I don't think that's true. One of Einstein's test for General Relativity, using Mercury's orbit, came around 10 years later after special relativity was proposed, which is understood to be motivated by both Maxwell's equations and experimental results suggesting that the speed of light (electromagnetic waves) not depending on the frame of reference. General relativity (explaining gravity) seem to have been motivated by Newton's gravity not playing well with Special relativity (with mass being relative and all).
I understand the frustration with Dark Matter, but my understanding is that Dark Matter is a guess that is known to be incomplete. Scientists are shooting everywhere to try to explain the discrepancy in gravitational effects and some form of undetected matter is currently the best hypothesis (but not the only one). You say that "we accept 90% observation disaccordance", but the source of its effect is being searched for.
The "it looks like there's stuff we didn't previously know about here" class of guesses has historically been fruitful, yielding, among other things, the discovery of several planets. Maybe dark matter isn't the answer, but it's not "no guess at all."
> just one Dark Something than 3 different somethings to explain anything
There are many candidates and I think nobody discarded it's a mix, it looks like a plausible scenario. I made a quick look in Wikipedia, but I didn't find anything relevant to a mix of Dark Mater.
There is(was?) some big discussion about cold vs hot (and warm?) dark mater. IIUC "cold" dark mater won. I'm not sure if there is enough details to make a good guess of the split, or if it's a 100.00% vs 0.00% case.
No, it's not quite "no guess at all". Using gravitational lensing to estimate how much mass there is in a part of a galaxy is pretty smart. It turns out that there sometimes indeed is mass (because the lensing is there) even though it doesn't seem to give off much light.
(But I don't really believe in dark matter, either. It's mostly epicycles and phlogiston.)
Because MOND doesn't actually explain anything, it's basically just fine tuning equations to make them fit with observations. Dark matter is the opposite, it takes all the observations and induces a fitting explanation
you can have both. the waterproof was just an excuse to make you either change the phone or go to a specialised center to change the battery, something that is so incovinient/expensive that people just obsolete their phone instead.
I trust that most batteries from iPhones are currently recycled through proper means either by Apple or third party firms.
I don't know how most people will dispose of user replacement batteries, but I suspect the recycle rates will be lower. If you want to ensure higher rates you also need to do something they do in the USA for car lead acid batteries. Charge a deposit fee on the new battery that is returned only when the battery is turned into a valid recycling entity.
the information is not new. how easy it is to get step by step instructions is new.
Try it yourself. Google is good but not instant, step by step good. you need to do your own research that takes time. time that anti-terrorist units use to track you down. now this time factor is very limited you don't need to do research, cross reference materials, sources, etc. LLM does it for you. a research that could take days is done in 1 hour.
> time that anti-terrorist units use to track you down.
Speaking from the perspective of a USian, I wish Federal law enforcement was that hypercompetent. (If they were, perhaps folks would stop to question the ever-broader expansion of 24/7 surveillance of ordinary folks.)
The distressingly-complete Panopticon that has been built over the past several decades [0] makes it really easy for them to get you when they know to search for you, specifically. History (both recent and not-so-recent) has shown that if they don't know who they're looking for, or don't even know that they should be looking for anyone, they're just godawful.
[0] ...and whose continued construction is vociferously cheered on by folks on all sides of all of the aisles...
To play devil's advocate, it's not inconceivable that machine learning may eventually allow well-heeled governments to finally realize the dream of finding needles by building sufficiently large haystacks, or at the very least coerce otherwise unruly citizens into compliance based on the belief that it is able to do so.
> ...or at the very least coerce otherwise unruly citizens into compliance based on the belief that it is able to do so.
I would argue that that day is already here, and has been for quite some time. (What makes this worse is that some agents of the State also believe that they have this capability, which results in profoundly unjust and substantially damaging results.)
> ...it's not inconceivable that machine learning may eventually allow...
Sure. I agree. It may eventually allow. There's no question about that. The thing is that 'cowl' was referring to the situation right now, not the one in some unspecified distant future.
As to law enforcement policy; as we mechanize [0] our policing and law enforcement, we must put additional constraints on the people who police and enforce the laws to keep the harm they can do to uninvolved innocents to a minimum.
Our laws already recognize the need for this: ask yourself why -in the US states that have such laws- nonconsensual audio recording of telephone (and other such) conversations is not permitted, but taking notes by hand is always acceptable. [1]
[0] Electronic machines are machines, too, you know!
[1] "You can't prove that someone took notes by hand, so it's pointless to try to stop it." is not a counterargument... you can't prove that unless you find the notes, just as you can't prove that someone recorded the audio of the conversation without finding the recording.
not the same thing. to use your tool analogy, the AI companies are saying , here is a fantastic angle grinder, you can do everything with it, even cut your bread.
technically yes but not the best and safest tool to give to the average joe to cut his bread.
it's not really investing though. Amazon will provide 50B worth of compute and Nvidia will provide 30B worth of chips etc. Google doesnt need any of those.
The only one that is really investing is SoftBank who is pushing for a faster IPO so they hope to make a profit on that and again Google does not offer that opportunity
min release age to 7 days about patch releases exposes you to the other side of the coin, you have an open 7 days window on zero-day exploits that might be fixed in a security release
The packages that are actually compromised are yanked, but I assume you're talking about a scenario more like log4shell. In that case, you can just disable the config to install the update, then re-enable in 7 days. Given that compromised packages are uploaded all the time and zero-day vulnerabilities are comparatively less common, I'd say it's the right call.
At least with pnpm, you can specify minimumReleaseAgeExclude, temporarily until the time passes. I imagine the other package managers have similar options.
Urgent fix, patch released, invisible to dev team cause they put in a 7 day wait. Now our app is vulnerable for up to 7 days longer than needed (assuming daily deploys. If less often, pad accordingly). Not a great excuse as to why the company shipped an "updated" version of the app with a standing CVE in it. "Sorry we were blinded to the critical fix because set an arbitrary local setting to ignore updates until they are 7 days old". I wouldn't fire people over that, but we'd definitely be doing some internal training.
Agree but you are talking about a POC, and he is talking about reliable, working software.
this phase of LLM are perfect for POCs and there you can have 10x speedup, no question.
But going from a POC to a working reliable software is where most of our time is spent anyway even without LLMS.
With LLMs this phase becomes worse.
we speedup 10x the poc time, we slow down almost as much in the next phases, because now you have a poc of 10k lines that you are not familiar with at all, that have to pay way more attention at code review,
that have to bolt on security as an afterthought (a major slowdown now, so much so that there are dedicated companies whose business model has become fixing Security problems caused by LLM POCs).
Next phase, POCs are almost always 99% happy path. Bolt on edge case as another after thought and because you did not write any of those 10k lines how do you even know what edge cases might be neccesary to cover? maybe you guessed it rigth, spend even more time studing the unfamiliar code.
We use LLM extensivly now in our day to day, development has become somewhat more enjoyable but there is, at least as of now, no real increase in final delivry times, we have just redestributed where effort and time goes.
At our company we use AI extensively to see if we missed edge cases and it does a pretty good job in pointing us towards places which could be handled better.
I know we all think we are always so deep into absolutely novel territory, which only our beautiful mind can solve. But for the vast majority of work done in the world, that work is transformative. You take X + Y and you get Z. Even with brand new api, you can just slap in the documentation and navigate it in order of magnitude faster than without.
I started using it for embedded systems doing something which I could literally find nothing about in rust but plenty in arduino/C code. The LLM allowed me to make that process so much faster.
then you are misunderstaing the downvoting. it's not that the fact that they are burning money. it's the fact that this cost today 20k but that is not the real cost if you factor the it is losing money on this price.
So Tomorrow when this "startup" will need to come out of their money burning phase, like every startup has to sooner or later, that cost will increase, because there is no other monetising avenue, at least not for anthropic that "wilL never use ads".
at 20k this "might" be a reasonable cost for "the project", at 200k it might not.
According to that article, the data they analyzed was API prices from LLM providers, not their actual cost to perform the inference. From that perspective, it's entirely possible to make "the cost of inference" appear to decline by simply subsidizing it more. The authors even hint at the same possibility in the overview:
> Note that while the data insight provides some commentary on what factors drive these price drops, we did not explicitly model these factors. Reduced profit margins may explain some of the drops in price, but we didn’t find clear evidence for this.
What in the world would the profit motive be to “make it appear” that inference cost is declining? Any investors would have access to the real data. End users don’t care. Why would you do the work for an elaborate deception?
