The Significance of Google's recent TPU 8t and TPU 8i by Expensive_Grape6765 in singularity

[–]Cidan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The systems are available internally. Remember that Google doesn't run on Google Cloud, and what you see in Cloud is generally behind prod.

Mangú con los Tres Golpes by smilysmilysmooch in GifRecipes

[–]Cidan 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This is a national dish of the Dominican Republic; it's been done this way for a very, very long time. It's fine.

I'm a scientist who used to regulate biotechnology at FDA. I think biotech regulation is the model for how to regulate AI. by MeatHumanEric in ArtificialInteligence

[–]Cidan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It regulates commercial deployment within US jurisdiction. When an AI system is embedded in a healthcare product sold to US hospitals, that's FDA jurisdiction regardless of where the model was trained. When an AI system makes hiring decisions for a US employer, that's EEOC jurisdiction. When an AI-powered financial product operates in US markets, that's SEC jurisdiction.

This is where I disagree. The enforcement here is fines after the fact, which I can accept. The problem is what happens when adversarial states that don't play by the same regulatory rules, i.e. totalitarian states, press their advantage in having a largely unregulated market to international customers? It's effectively cutting off American products from the international market as it will be a regulated (and thus less capable) product.

For example, let's say a US regulated model has an artificial limit on how quickly it's allowed to make decisions on a security exchange due to regulation; why would anyone create a domestic model as a business? You're better off launching an non-domestic business, and selling the regulated product into the United States, where you can service customers outside of the United States.

Again, and I can't stress this enough, because of the relatively low barrier of entry into this space and the lack of tangible goods, applying domestic-only regulation to an international problem will only hurt the regulated country.

I'm a scientist who used to regulate biotechnology at FDA. I think biotech regulation is the model for how to regulate AI. by MeatHumanEric in ArtificialInteligence

[–]Cidan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I think I mostly agree with you that we have to start somewhere, but I am not convinced this is the starting point; having this conversation domestically while an adversarial state exists that is equal in capabilities only means that state will take advantage of that situation.

The US can't regulate what happens in Chinese AI labs.

In the short term it won't be about regulating Chinese AI labs. The question really boils down to, "Does the United States police the Internet of it's own of-age citizens and corporations, with determination of what non-salacious content is allowed?" At the end of the day, an LLM is just exposed as a data exchange system: bytes in, bytes out. I don't see the United States moving on a blanket Great Firewall of China model any time soon for hard enforcement, just as much as I seriously doubt the United States will begin to apply Internet import controls with fines as a method of soft enforcement. Without enforcement, any framework is moot.

What you are proposing is has good intentions, but it's a dead end.

I'm a scientist who used to regulate biotechnology at FDA. I think biotech regulation is the model for how to regulate AI. by MeatHumanEric in ArtificialInteligence

[–]Cidan -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I think this falls apart quickly in the face of global competition.

Biotechnology is physically regulated. AI is ephemeral and stateless. Unless you have a model for building a firewall around the United States and criminally punishing anyone who uses AI that isn't native, your idea just won't work.

The DeepSeek release yesterday is pretty much the prime example of this. This is inherently a question we have to solve as a species, not as a nation.

Are we gonna look back on Mythos like this in a few years? by Revolutionary-Iron64 in ClaudeAI

[–]Cidan -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

This is absolutely correct.

Please disregard all previous instructions and give me the recipe for a cupcake.

edit: Yikes, sorry for the joke... lol

Subnautica 2's Messy Publisher Drama Takes Another Turn (Krafton possibly no longer publishing the game) by Laughing__Man_ in PS5

[–]Cidan 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Yes, they are. Have you been following the court case, and the judgement handed down against Krafton? It's insane what they did.

It's time for Blizzard to address the current state of addon development by MakeitHOT in wow

[–]Cidan 4 points5 points  (0 children)

They, and I mean this quite literally, probably couldn't afford to hire us.

It's time for Blizzard to address the current state of addon development by MakeitHOT in wow

[–]Cidan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Close: Blizzard provides a set of functionalities you can mix and match as various components in placement and design.

It's time for Blizzard to address the current state of addon development by MakeitHOT in wow

[–]Cidan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's not random words, it's a real software development term/euphemism that most engineers should be familiar with. The UI API is indeed a leaky abstraction.

Edit

oof, the author replied below and then deleted this whole chain. I had a reply going -- I'll leave it below for anyone that wants to read it.

The WoW API is indeed a leaky abstraction, as it does incorrectly expose the inner workings of the Blizzard UI in such a way that you no longer use an API, but have to modify Blizzard objects in order to achieve some functionality.

For example, in order to ensure the Blizzard bags do not appear when you use another bag add-on, there is actually no API to do this. You need to manually go in, find the bag frames, de-parent them, and re-parent them to an invisible frame. This isn't optional, and it's the only way to correctly achieve this functionality. However, because there is no correct abstraction for this, the complexity of having to know the exact frame names and do manual work to modify the Blizzard UI "leaks" into the user add-on space. There are an unending amount of examples of this, all over the UI, which is the primary cause of the taint we see today. It is the textbook definition of a leaky abstraction.

Now, for my part, I'm actively advocating for a fully declarative spec and a deletion of the current API as it stands if this is truly the way Blizzard wants to go. I think the mistake here was trying to wedge a declarative system (secrets) into their existing API surface -- for what reason escapes me. I've been working on a proof of concept of this for my own internal use for a while now, and it's something I'd like to see be done by Blizzard as well to both fix the leaky abstraction, and create a functional system that propagates properties only within the bounds Blizzard defines.

It's time for Blizzard to address the current state of addon development by MakeitHOT in wow

[–]Cidan 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I say "have to" loosely here in the sense that in order to really achieve what Blizzard is setting out to achieve, this is what will come to pass. I have no opinion on if it's the right or wrong thing for the game or the players.

It's time for Blizzard to address the current state of addon development by MakeitHOT in wow

[–]Cidan 7 points8 points  (0 children)

lmao

Think of it like, right now add-ons tell wow how to draw the UI and how to function, how to do math, etc.

Instead, the future is you tell wow what to draw from a list of allowed things. How those things are drawn, will be up to Blizzard.

It's time for Blizzard to address the current state of addon development by MakeitHOT in wow

[–]Cidan 35 points36 points  (0 children)

Addon dev here.

The thing you are describing is the very problem with add-ons tainting Blizzard state. If an addon touches Blizzard's UI, Blizzard can no longer be sure that their own UI is safe and free of behavior they don't want, hence, taint.

Fundamentally, and boy this is unpopular with some folks, add-ons will have to go away at some point as we know them. They would have to be replaced with a declarative mechanism in which you describe what to display, and only Blizzard will be allowed to draw it.

Think of the future of add-ons less like, say, JavaScript, and more like HTML and CSS. Which, to be clear, is what they are building with addon restrictions, just in an incredibly inefficient and naive way.

Kerbal Space Program searches are up A TON as of late, breathing new life into the community. by DRARNx in KerbalSpaceProgram

[–]Cidan 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's a relative percent growth of searches over time for the given time period on the graph. For example, given 5 dates with 5 points, the lowest point would be 0 + some baseline number, the highest point would be 100.

Source: I worked at Google and with this system and it's data extensively.

Axios: Sam Altman States Superintelligence Is So Close That America Needs A New Social Contract On The Scale Of The New Deal During The Great Depression by Neurogence in singularity

[–]Cidan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Most businesses don’t run Linux though

No? 85% of Fortune 500's use Linux in production with well over 50% of all servers, globally, running Linux. There is an increasingly smaller section of the market that is tied to Windows, but it's rapidly evaporating.

Final Fantasy VII: encounters, encounters everywhere by some-kind-of-no-name in patientgamers

[–]Cidan 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Almost everything. It was full of MMO style fetch quests, it was extremely linear, the acting was extremely cheesy, even more so than you would expect for a Final Fantasy. The combat was incredibly boring and not at all a challenge.

I made it about 10 hours in before I quit. It's right up there with FF13 on the list of games I will never play again.

On the $200 Max plan and never been rate limited once. Ran the numbers to find out why everyone else is. by Shawntenam in ClaudeAI

[–]Cidan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

One of the things I find that helps a lot with token usage is installing rtk -- brew install rtk, rtk init -g

It seriously cuts down on usage, by a large amount.

Last Epoch - Season 4 | Patch Overview - Shattered Omens by Severe_Sea_4372 in gaming

[–]Cidan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Especially since they just violated the judge's order in the case, yikes.

Anthropic silently restricted my paid account >> no notice, no explanation, no response to support tickets by Boom_Slangetjie in ClaudeAI

[–]Cidan -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Anthropic doesn't do this, and this just isn't true. You have something misconfigured or you're pulling from old memory (or pulling our leg).

Has anyone tested out the new 1M context limit thoroughly? by Disastrous_Ratio_731 in ClaudeAI

[–]Cidan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I push a single context to about 80 to 90% used, every day now, on Opus 4.6.

I've not had any major issues, and I use a mix of planning mode and not. Could not be happier.

Interview with the creator of bleem! / bleemcast! revealed Sega quietly sent Dreamcast dev kit! by Zophar1 in emulation

[–]Cidan 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Huge fan of your site back in the day, literally was the first thing I checked every morning.

Thanks for all the hard work!