imo i wouldn’t overlook CERN too much due to apparent obscurity. that’s CERN as in WWW & LHC.

plus it’s specifically designed for hw, unlike most of the others which are more likely to lean sw centric?

if your hw is very sw-heavy you could even consider splitting the license types between firmware and hardware if it helps.

not saying what the right choice is for you, just the apparent obscurity i think isn’t such a big issue. but welcome correction.

i think they mean future devices, not previously sold.

either way the thread is 99% invalid criticism of what is afaict one of the best projects of our generation

Google could snap its fingers tomorrow and lock down the ability to unlock bootloaders.

only valid point in the post afaict

It’s not any more conductive

quick note: you’re likely correct the conductivity may not be higher, but the conductance likely is.

in other words, i second your suggestion of heavier duty foil (for EM reasons, skin effect etc) alongside the mechanical factors you mentioned.

no, they steal everything.

why do we keep letting them steal

‘free speech’ has always been about the freedom of the oppressed to fight upwards against their oppressor with language - but now they stole it & trying to make it mean their freedom to oppress minorities.

same for ‘woke’ - it used to mean basic human decency, once again they stole it & warped it’s meaning by pretending they’re the victims and it’s preventing their freedom (ie. their freedom to be a bigot).

same for ‘political correctness’, which was originally a criticism of using fake concern over moral issues for political agenda (sounds familiar), now warped beyond use.

swastika - used for THOUSANDS of years before the fucking nazis came along & stole it. now the cultures it actually belongs to get hate for practicing their ancient beliefs.

pepe and many others are a long list of things they steal and ruin.

why do we keep letting them steal?

accept that this is the part of the animal kingdom you’ve been born into. we ALL have these types of interactions so noone can really judge anyone for it.

therefore just chuckle about it, and shrug it off.

Exactly!

Thanks for reading :) Realised i was going on a bit of a rant, but thought why not keep going lol

good points on the training order!

i was mostly thinking of intentionally introduced stochastic processes during training, eg. quantisation noise which is pretty broadband when uncorrelated, and even correlated from real-world datasets will inevitably contain non-determinism, though some contraints re. language “rules” could possibly shape that in interesting ways for LLMs.

and especially the use of stochastic functions for convergence & stochastic rounding in quantisation etc. not to mention intentionally introduced randomisation in training set augmentation. so i think for most purposes, and with few exceptions they are mathematically definable as stochastic processes.

where that overlaps with true theoretical determinism certainly becomes fuzzy without an exact context. afaict most kernel backed random seeds on x86 since 2015 with the RDSEED instruction, will have an asynchronous thermal noise based NIST 800-90B approved entropy source within the silicon and a NIST 800-90C Non-deterministic Random Bit Generator (NRBG).

on other more probable architectures (GPU/TPU) I think that is going to be alot rarer and from a cryptographic perspective hardware implementations of even stochastic rounding are going to be a deterministic circuit under the hood for a while yet.

but given the combination of overwhelming complexity, trade secrets and classical high entropy sources, I think most serious attempts at formal proofs would have to resign to stochastic terms in their formulation for some time yet.

there may be some very specific and non-general exceptions, and i do believe this is going to change in the future as both extremes (highly formal AI models, and non-deterministic hardware backed instructions) are further developed. and ofc overcoming the computational resource hurdles for training could lead to relaxing some of the current practical requirements for stochastic processes during training.

this is ofc only afaict, i don’t work in LLM field.

some people label themselves christian and feel that label is a free pass for venomous bigotry. my feeling is that’s perhaps a bit un-christ-like, actually.

ignoring the hate-brigade, lemmy users are probably a bit more tech savvy on average.

and i think many people who know how “AI” works under the hood are frustrated because, unlike most of it’s loud proponents, they have real-world understanding what it actually is.

and they’re tired of being told they “don’t get it”, by people who actually don’t get it. but instead they’re the ones being drowned out by the hype train.

and the thing fueling the hype train are dishonest greedy people, eager to over-extend the grift at the expense of responsible and well engineered “AI”.

but, and this is the real crux of it, keeping the amazing true potential of “AI” technology in the hands of the rich & powerful. rather than using it to liberate society.

LLMs could be made deterministic

Good reminder that LLM output could be made deterministic!

Though correct me if I’m wrong, their training is, with few exceptions, very much going to be stochastic? Ofc it’s not an actual requirement, but under real world efficiency & resource constraints, it’s very very often going to be stochastic?

Personally, I’m not sure I’d argue automation can’t be stochastic. But either way, OP asks a good question for us to ponder! The short answer imo: it depends what you mean by “automation” :)

If I identify as a vegan but I like to eat meat with every meal, am I really a vegan?

/thread

correct.

the level of unsubstantiated cope in this thread is mind boggling. from people many of whom should honestly know better.

always listening

i never claimed always, i specifically advised op to refrain from claiming always.

how can you pretend to represent a sound scientific approach when you misrepresent the scientific claims made in sources you cite

piss easy

many domain experts dedicating significant resources to it’s study

pick one.

when your sources repeatedly don’t say what you claim they say, maybe its time to revisit your claims ;)

Of course a researcher is never sure something is 100% ruled out. That’s part of how academic research works.

once again, that isn’t what they were reported to have said. [and researchers don’t need to repeat the basic precepts of the scientific method in every paper they write, so perhaps its worthwhile to note what they were reported to say about that, rather than write it off as a generic ‘noone can be 100% certain of anything’] it’s a bit rich to blame someone for lacking rigor while repeatedly misrepresenting what your own article even says.

what the article actually said is

because there are some scenarios not covered by their study

and even within the subset of scenarios they did study, the article notes various caveats of the study:

Their phones were being operated by an automated program, not by actual humans, so they might not have triggered apps the same way a flesh-and-blood user would. And the phones were in a controlled environment, not wandering the world in a way that might trigger them: For the first few months of the study the phones were near students in a lab at Northeastern University and thus surrounded by ambient conversation, but the phones made so much noise, as apps were constantly being played with on them, that they were eventually moved into a closet

there’s so much more research to be done on this topic, we’re FAR FAR from proving it conclusively (to the standards of modern science, not some mythical scientifically impossible certainty).

presenting to the public that is a proven science, when the state of research afaict has made no such claim is muddying the waters.

if you’re as absolutely correct as you claim, why misrepresent whats stated in the sources you cite?

no, they don’t

Please be careful with your claims.

In my experience, whenever investigating these claims and refutations we usually find when digging past the pop media headlines into the actual academic claims, that noone has proven it’s not happening. If you know of a conclusive study, please link.

Regarding the article you have linked we don’t even need to dig past the article to the actual academic claims.

The very article you linked states quite clearly:

The researchers weren’t comfortable saying for sure that your phone isn’t secretly listening to you in part because there are some scenarios not covered by their study.

(Genuine question, not trying to be snarky) Will you take a moment to reflect on which factors may have contributed to your eagerness to misrepresent the conclusions of the studies cited in your article?