Feedback about creatine often seems mixed. Many love it, but many also report problems. Just in this thread there are people talking about heart palpitations and sleep problems. I have the theory that these side effects and mixed experiences come from impurities of lesser quality products. Apparently there are mostly two sources: Creatine mono-hydrate which mostly comes from China and "creapure", which is a patented formula known for its purity. Does anyone have insight into how substantiated this theory is? How likely are negative effects because of pollutants/impurities?
> Creatine mono-hydrate which mostly comes from China and "creapure", which is a patented formula known for its purity.
Creapure sells Creatine Monohydrate not a proprietary form of creatine [1]. The higher end in creatine is Creatine HCL which is more expensive but more water soliable, easier on the stomach, and requires a smaller dose.
In terms of creatine manufactured in the Western World:
* CON-CRĒT manufactures creatine in the US, they produce Creatine HCL.
* Creapure manufactures creatine in Germany. They produce Creatine Monohydrate.
There are also a variety of brands that import creatine and run various tests to ensure quality.
The abstract you linked, pasted below, seems to say otherwise. Placebo groups report same SE frequency.
“Across 684 randomized controlled trials, reported SEs were infrequent. Although dose and duration tertiles were statistically associated with study-level side effect reporting, the effect sizes were uniformly small, events were infrequent, and the reported symptoms were primarily mild and nonspecific. No consistent exposure–response pattern indicative of clinically meaningful risk was observed. Adjusted logistic regression and frequency-based analyses showed no consistent dose- or duration-dependent increase in SE risk, with placebo groups often reporting similar or greater SE frequencies at the study-reporting level. CrM appears to be well-tolerated and, at the study-level, does not increase the risk of gastrointestinal, renal, liver, musculoskeletal, or other SEs compared to placebo, even at high doses or longer durations.”
1) Creatine is safe, "creatine supplementation is safe across a range of doses, durations, and populations according to human trials".
2) Stomach issues are a commonly reported side effect, "Gastrointestinal issues were the most frequently reported side effect... Most notably, gastrointestinal distress is a commonly reported side effect, and those supplementing with creatine may need to divide the dose into smaller boluses to alleviate it; however, it is worth noting that this side effect was not persistent"
3) It is not clear if the side effects are caused by creatine, many of the issues can be explained by baseline issues rather than caused by creatine, "No consistent or clinically meaningful dose-dependent increases in side-effect reporting were observed across models; even at higher doses and prolonged durations, reporting remained low and largely comparable to placebo at the study level"
On the sleep deprivation topic, adenosine buildup in the brain is, along with melatonin, one of the brain's core sleep mechanisms. As you expend energy during the day, adenosine builds up, so your brain has an idea of how long you've been awake.
Creatine recycles adenosine back into ATP, so less adenosine builds up. The amount of creatine you find in foods naturally is way less than the amount people are supplementing with.
So it makes sense physiologically why mega doses of creatine might negatively affect sleep.
So creatine adds the phosphates back to the adenosine? However, it's a good reason to exercise. Burn the phosphates from ATP and be left with adenosine, which as you say promotes sleep.
However, I don't think it is so much of a signal of your brain having an idea of how long you've been awake, that's the circadian cycle. I always looked at adenosine as a driver of sleep need. If you burned this much ATP, we're going to need to recover. Seems like an elegant process.
As with anything in medicine, if it was that straightforward, someone would've already discovered that right now. Human physiology (and biology in general) is such a messy field that the simple act of using isolated facts very rarely gives useful insights.
LLMs are extremely capable at problem solving. Presumably because you can autonomously learn a lot of it. But can you somehow account for things like long-term maintainability and code quality (whatever that means) or do you always have to rely on either existing high-quality code-bases (pre-training) or human curated datasets? Since you can't really quantify these properties (as opposed to: the problem is either solved or not), does this restrict autonomous improvement in this area? Are there benchmarks that consider this? Could Claude Mythos create an ultra-quality version of Claude Code or would it still produce something similar to earlier models, which are already over-sufficient in individual problem solving capability.
> Since you can't really quantify these properties (as opposed to: the problem is either solved or not)
I think we could quantify these properties, just not entirely.
One could take a long-term project and analyze how often or which approaches resulted in a refactor. In the same way, we could also quantify designs that resulted in vulnerabilities (that we know of) the most often.
It even wouldn't be impossible to create artificial scenarios. Projects that have an increasing number of requirements, see how many code changes are required, how many bugs result from that. Again, quantifiable to some extent. Probably better than datasets totally lacking something like that.
There probably isn't a public dataset on this, but it wouldn't be impossible.
If I'd have to make one recommendation it's David August's Boiler Room set [1]. It has such a coherent flow through the whole set, it makes me fly through multiple hours if not days of work.
SQLite seems very powerful for building FTS (user enters free text, expects high precision/recall results). Still, I feel like it's non-trivial to get good search quality.
I think the naive approach is to tokenize the input and append "*" for prefix matching. I'm not too experienced and this can probably be improved a lot. There are many settings like different tokenizers, stemming, etc. Additionally, a lot can be built on top like weighting, boosting exact matches, etc.
Does anyone know good resources for this to learn and draw inspiration from?
> Does anyone know good resources for this to learn and draw inspiration from?
Is there a reason why something more custom built, like ParadeDB Community edition won't meet your needs?
I understand you're speaking about SQLite, while ParadeDB is PostgreSQL but as you know, it's non-trivial to get good search quality, so I'm trying to understand your situation and needs.
I mean you can use sqlite as an index and then rebuild all of Lucene on top of it. It's non-trivial to build search quality on top of actual search libraries too.
O'Reilly's "Relevant Search" isn't the worst here, but you'll be porting/writing a bit yourself.
One interesting detail: In previous years, Joscha Bach gave a talk on AI, consciousness, and related topics (see e.g. [0]). A similar talk was planned for this year as well, but after emails between him and Epstein were made public (see his comment on this in [1]), his talk was canceled. Instead, there appears to have been an event that critically addressed the situation [2]. Unfortunately it was not recorded. Did anyone attend? A discussion between Joscha and his critics would have been really interesting.
Well that discussion talk is not an open discourse about the situation...
He quoted what he believed was scientific evidence in a private conversation that became public, has comments on fashism being efficient are clearly anti-facist and believed to observe a gender stereotype. No matter if the facts were true, it should be possible to discuss such things (especially those you think are facts) in private without getting canceled. Even if they would play in to the hand of racism or sexism if made as public statements.
I found his appology a bit weak, but I also don't see his offense, despite the messages in public being offensive and possibly harmful.
If you are going to defend someone you have no or very distant association with like you stated in another reply. Maybe just maybe read what everyone else is talking about, in this chain it would be his email exchange with epstein. Thanks for making ME read that pseudo intellectual shit again so YOU don't have to.
"too many people, so many mass executions of the elderly and infirm make sense is the fundamental fact that everyone dies at some time .make it imporrisbole to ask so why not earilier. if the brain discards unused neurons, why shold socieity keep their equivalent."
"too many people, so many mass executions of the elderly and infirm make sense is the fundamental fact that everyone dies at some time .make it imporrisbole to ask so why not earilier. if the brain discards unused neurons, why shold socieity keep their equivalent
The radical idea of treating individuals in a society as cells and the society itself as a well-organized organism is fascism, or course. Probably the most efficient and rationally stringent way of governance, if someone could pull it off in a sustainable way; and if it is aggressive and expansive, its efficiency makes it a virus that everybody will want to stomp out. Fascism makes romantic doo-gooders like me very uncomfortable"
He dares to explore radical taboo ideas and concludes that it would be fascism, which he is not comfortable with.
So .. I see nothing where he is intolerant of anything. But you seem not tolerant for people daring to explore certain thoughts in general? Even if they reach the conclusion this is not the way to go.
(And maybe even an attempt at dissuading the other person of those concepts)
That's why I didn't want to quote anything because it's just deteriorating into a debate club about hypotheticals.
To extend your "full" quote: "The radical idea of treating individuals in a society as cells and the society itself as a well-Organized organism is fascism, or course. Probably the most efficient and rationally stringent way of governance, if someone could pull it off in a sustainable way… I rather like the treatment Fascism gets in the Amazon Series ‘The Man in the High Castle’, which explores what would have happened if the Germans and Japanese had won the war: A society that tries to function as a brutal and ruthlessly efficient machine, eliminating all social and evolutionary slack. It is very dark, but not a flat caricature of pointless evil for its own sake."
Let's stay away from killing people how about the misogyny?:
"You cannot learn what does not attract your attention. Women tend to find abstract systems, conflicts and mechanisms intrinsically boring."
"Let's stay away from killing people how about the misogyny?:
"You cannot learn what does not attract your attention. Women tend to find abstract systems, conflicts and mechanisms intrinsically boring.""
I am not an expert, but that is not misogyny in my book. Not sure about the part about conflicts, but in general it matches my observation as well, women tend to find abstract things boring. That does not say ALL women are like this, or ALL men like abstract things, but on average this is the trend. And when you compare the ratio of men / women who go into in the abstract scientific field, it seems backed up by real world data (also when accounting for existing sexism in the field).
In general, Joshua is indeed a weird guy, the main thing I remember from him as a guest from a alternativlos podcast is:
He always was exited for AGI to finally have someone smart enough to talk to.
Well, I don't subscribe to that, nor his openness for certain other positions, but he is definitely not a fascist. And I believe I am sort of an expert here, as I exposed and confronted quite some of those who tried to infiltrate alternative groups I am part of. (Also I live in saxony. I know cryptonazi talk.) So yes, I do see some signs that are worth debating. Giving him a chance to clarify and reconsider.
But canceling and blocking him will just push him to that side for good. And that would be a shame.
To add some context and to spare readers who, like me, know nothing about Joscha Bach and only little about Epstein from having to go through all the linked material:
The allegations do not appear to involve abuse or moral complicity with Epstein. Instead, they seem to focus on emails Bach exchanged with Epstein concerning IQ, race, and possibly sex. Bach denies these allegations of racism and sexism.
That is at least how I understand the material based on the provided links.
"The main part of the workshop consists of a moderated deliberative discussion with the audience."
I think it is a bit ironic, that Joshua got canceled because of a private conversation - and the debate about it is not recorded, so .. in effect people are more free to express their opinions without getting canceled.
Disapointing to me. Joshua seems to have points of views I find debatable (I don't know much about him) But canceling to not have to stand his opinions? That is very much against the hacker spirit to me and he is a smart guy who knows a lot about AI.
In my dayjob I often run the tech for events, nearly once a week. In my experience known recording/publication tend to make discussions worse and not better than closed room discussions — especially if the topic is controversial. I'd love it if that wasn't the case, but that is not what I observed.
That is because with published recordings it often becomes purely performative, where people aren't actually interested in honestly engaging with each others thoughts, but instead (ab)using the recording as a stage to make a public statement. It essentially becomes a thinly veiled PR battle with multiple actors trying to control the narrative and the ones that prepared well (so not the general audience) tend to dominate the discussion. In my experience that is the opposite of a good discourse.
In the latter case the audience is only the audience that is already present and they are part of the discussion, if everything goes well a feeling of "we need to resolve this issue" is established, with a collective feeling emerging in the room. There is no guarantee that this happens and that there is a result, but in my experience (with well over 400 events) the tendency speaks for the closed room, especially with touchy subjects.
"the tendency speaks for the closed room, especially with touchy subjects."
I do agree to that
I just would have prefered a closed room debate with him invited to adress those issues, not the cancel mentality and then speaking in a close room about him.
"All of the people I know who were friends with this sociopathic child-trafficking pedophile told me he was reformed now" is certainly something to put out there.
I'm a fan of antlr-ng. It's a solid upgrade if you're already using antlr. In my experience, they're fully compatible. antlr's ALL(*) parsing is relatively powerful for a parser generator, but it lacks support for incremental parsing. antlr-ng might improve things enough to be usable interactively in smaller settings, even if you need to reparse the document each time. It also comes with useful extensions like https://github.com/mike-lischke/antlr4-c3, which generates syntactic and semantic completions directly from the grammar.
Is there a general solution to this problem? I assume you can only start buffering tokens once you see a construct, for which there are continuations, that once completed, would lead to the previous text being rendered differently. Of course you don't want to keep buffering for too long, since this would defeat the purpose of streaming. And you never know if the potential construct will actually be generated. Also, the solution probably has to be more context sensitive. For example, within code blocks, you'll never want to render links for []() constructs.
EDIT: One library I found is https://github.com/thetarnav/streaming-markdown which seems to combine incremental parsing with optimistic rendering, which works good enough in practice, I guess.
There are a few things in our implementation that make a more general solution unnecessary. We only need the output to support a limited set of markdown which is typically text, bullet points, and links. So we don't need code blocks (yet).
However, the second thing (not mentioned in the post) is that we are not rendering the markdown to HTML on the server, so []() markdown is sent to the client as []() markdown, not converted into <a href=...>. So even if a []() type link exists in a code block, that text will still be sent to the client as []() text, only sent in a single chunk and perhaps with the link URL replaced. The client has its own library to render the markdown to HTML in React.
Also, the answers are typically short so even if OpenAI outputs some malformed markdown links, worst case is that we end up buffering more than we need to and the user experiences a pause after which the entire response is visible at once (the last step is to flush any buffered text to the client).
Yes. You can define a regex matching what you want, and every regex can be compiled into a state machine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondeterministic_finite_automa...). Then at each character you make a step in your state machine. You pause the output while the regex is not matching.
That was my association as well! Dune even uses similar vocabulary. For example someone mentioned "pranayama" in this thread, which sounds a lot like Dune's "Prana-bindu". Really makes me wonder about Frank Herbert's experiences about all of this.
Aren't LLMs much more limited on the amount of output tokens than input tokens? For example, GPT-4o seems to support only up to 16 K output tokens. I'm not completely sure what the reason is, but I wonder how that interacts with Chain-of-Thought reasoning.
There's no fundamental difference between input and output tokens technically.
The internal model space is exactly the same after evaluating some given set of token, no matter which of them were produced by the prompter or the model.
The 16k output token limit is just an arbitrary limit in the chatgpt interface.
reply