I'm not the person you replied to but I'm wondering which Google AI product you are referring to that you use for search which is so excellent that you need someone to find for you an example of it failing?

I think Google has several ai products with search features?

Which one in your experience "seems correct"?

I'm fascinated because I've never found any LLM to be particularly error free at search.

Google.com with the AI overview or whatever they call it now. It seems to source web page information for grounding so it's reasonably correct and doesn't hallucinate recently at least.

By that logic a Markov chain is better on average just for the fact that it was trained on a large corpus of human knowledge, including psychology, therapy and study material.

I've definitely posted to the same subreddit with two different accounts by accident without being banned.

The android reddit app annoyingly doesn't check for account matches. If you click a browser notification link on Account A it can open a reply form on App account B.

I meant if one of the accounts is already banned there, it counts as ban evasion and Reddit bans all of your accounts.

This might easily happen if you like to participate in political discussions.

In hindsight, I understand. But I did this 6-7 years back and no one has come after me, should I care at this point?

You are exaggerating, right? They didn't really fire the entire Arc team did they? I couldn't find a source saying that.

Nope, no exaggeration.

The news that Celestial is basically canceled already hit the HN front page, as well as Druid has been canceled before tapeout.

Celestial will only be issued in the variant that comes in budget/industrial embedded Intel platforms that have a combined IO+GPU tile, but the performance big boy desktop/laptop parts that have a dedicated graphics tile will ship an Nvidia-produced tile.

There will be no Celestial DGPU variant, nor dedicated tile variant. Drivers will be ceasing support for DGPUs of all flavors, and no new bug fixes will happen for B series GPUs (as there is no B series IGPUs; A series IGPUs will remain unaffected).

They signed the deal like 2-3 months ago to cancel GPUs in favor of Nvidia. The other end of this deal is the Nvidia SBCs in the future will be shipping as big-boy variants with Xeon CPUs, Rubin (replacing Blackwell) for the GPU, Vera (replacing Grace) for the on-SBC GPU babysitter, and newest gen Xeons to do the non-inference tasks that Grace can't handle.

There is also talk that this deal may lead to Nvidia moving to Intel Foundry, away from TSMC. There is also talk that Nvidia may just buy Intel entirely.

For further information, see Moore's Law Is Dead's coverage off and on over the past year.

You may be a bit too credulous. There has been a "leak" or "rumor" that Intel's GPU initiatives are canceled about once every three months, for over two years. Yet Intel continues to release new SKUs and make new product announcements. Just last month they announced a new data center GPU product (an inference-focused variant of Jaguar Shores).

I can't see the future, but I can see patterns: the media that reports straight from the industry rumor mill LOVES this "Intel has cancelled its GPUs" story, for whatever reason. I have no particular love for Intel (out of my six current systems, my only Intel box is a cheap NUC from 2018), but at this point, these rumors echo the old joke about economists who "accurately predicted the last nine out of two recessions".

ah, so this is MLID. yeah i'll wait for the announcement.

MLID has been saying Arc was cancelled since before the first Alchemist cards were released.

MLID is a terrible information source.

The idea that Intel's foundry could replace TSMC is hilarious. No. Maybe a gamer-focused mid-market card based on 30-series.

Pat spent a lot of money on foundry to catch up.

42 wasn't a low quality answer.

The joke revolves around the incongruity of "42" being precisely correct.

Even if America is an empire and VoA is propaganda "Imperial Manager" doesn't seem very descriptive of what a judge does.

It does more describing work than what the word "judge" is doing here. So much so that it's controversial.

Are you talking about the same thing everyone else is?

Imagine the conversation went like this:

A: "Maybe we shouldn't sacrifice 500 virgins to the Aztec God to predict the harvest next hear?"

B "Why not? Killing virgins to predict the harvest are well calibrated (ie accurate).."

Adding web search doesn't necessarily lead to better information at any context.

In my experience the model will assume the web results are the answer even if the search engine returns irrelevant garbage.

For example you ask it a question about New Jersey law and the web results are about New York or about "many states" it'll assume the New York info or "many states" info is about New Jersey.

> If you took Einstein at 40 and surgically removed his hippocampus so he can't learn anything he didn't already know (meaning no online learning), that's still a very useful AGI.

I like how people are accepting this dubious assertion that Einstein would be "useful" if you surgically removed his hippocampus and engaging with this.

It also calls this Einstein an AGI rather than a disabled human???

Hypotheticals fear him

What doesn't make any sense is proposing the constitution be interpreted as it was when there was no general right to vote or general right to political speech... then claiming this is the "voters decide" option.

Your argument ignores two things.

First, the US constitution as it currently stands admits modifications. Amendments are version bumps. My understanding is that they’re harder to come by these days.

Second, the constitution may be written but the interpretation is always changing. In particular, the interpretation of laws around restriction of free speech have lots of history of being interpreted in ways that may or may not be congruent with the intentions of the original authors, who’re dead, so we’ll never know the truth of it. It’s only been 107 years since the US Supreme Court decided that anti-draft speech in time of war COULD BE ILLEGAL. Apparently that was partially overturned in 1969.

Thirdly [naming, caching and out by one bugs!] it is far from clear that a written constitution will lead to a durable republic. It’s only been ~250 years. Too soon to tell.

> Second, the constitution may be written but the interpretation is always changing

It’s okay if the change is because you think the new interpretation is closer to what the constitution originally meant.

It’s democratically illegitimate to change the interpretation otherwise. A written constitution is already an impingement on democracy. But how can it be that whoever is doing the interpreting is allowed to restrict democratically adopted laws in ways the constitution didn’t originally intend to restrict them?

There is no right to vote in the constitution as written and interpreted in the 1700s. There is also no guarantee of freedom of speech. The first amendment was considered a rule that only applied federally.

What's democratically illegitimate is everything you wrote in this thread.

If your state government threw you in jail for what you just wrote that would be perfectly aligned with your "original understanding" interpretation of the U.S constitution.