it most-likely will in terms of performance as it uses 50% less memory (for sure it will at inference time that is the most used operation on web services), because it can leverage longer T and D if the design is confirmed and the quality of generation is comparable to other models.
If this very basic assumption is correct, it means a lot of savings in electricity as the same GPUs can resolve more requests.
The great thing about the comment you're replying to is that it has a list of suggestions. So you've got two options: you can get angry that one of them doesn't cater to you, or you could skip that one and look at the others that do.
If you agree with the entire comment, except just that line, do you upvote or not? I think maybe that's why :) If that line was the only thing in the comment, the reaction would probably have been different.
I'd say particularly if you're an atheist. I've always been atheist, but fascinated by churches and religions regardless, because no matter what you believe, it's hard to refuse the proof that the ideas themselves are powerful and helps people a lot of the times. Why is that? Best way to find out is to talk and engage with those who have these different ideas, probably where they are the most comfortable.
Doesn't mean you need to forget all the horrible impact it has had too, and how much better humanity would probably be without it, or even continue thinking about ideas how we could finally get rid of it once and for all, without violence.
Also, probably different in different parts of the world, but in many places churches are just purely architecturally/visually beautiful and historically interesting buildings. Some of them have really interesting acoustics too, and organs. Many interesting stuff at churches :)
It's not even just an atheist issue. You have to have spiritual beliefs that value the specific repetitive church rituals so as not to be bored out of your mind.
I always said science is kind of like a religion in a way. Wonder if that's closer or further from some truth than "technology". Interesting perspective nonetheless.
Direct quote from their joint statement: "Apple and Google have entered into a multi-year collaboration under which the next generation of Apple Foundation Models will be based on Google's Gemini models and cloud technology. These models will help power future Apple Intelligence features, including a more personalized Siri coming this year."
They don't need to, and shouldn't, use this service. It was not made for them and I doubt sincerely that it was made to harm them.
There were direct victims, but you also forget that the US now has a shared trauma over the handling of the Epstein situation and its systematic suppression, the gaslighting, and anything which continues to fuel discussion is a good thing, until the day that it has been properly addressed.
> Like the gifted kid who lives with his mom at 30, at some point in time, we have to stop talking about potential and start talking about results.
This is an entirely unnecessary jab. There’s a whole generation dealing with stuff like this because of economic and other forces outside their control.
WASM not taking over the world is probably also due to forces outside its control; I guess that's only relevant if money was being spent to accomplish that goal.
Depends on your goals. If you are starting a business and you see a company surpass the market cap of Apple, again, then you might view their business model as successful. If you are a privacy advocate then you will hate their model.
Well you said "is this any _worse_" (emphasis mine) and I could only assume you meant ethically worse. At which point the answer is kind of obvious because Google hasn't proven to be the most ethical company w.r.t. user data (and lots of other things).
reply