This is an opportunity for personal evolution. Think about what you did wrong to get yourself here?
The version of you that failed has been shattered. It’s painful, but this is your opportunity to move on to become a wholly stronger person.
You tested part of your personality in an extreme situation and you found it did not hold up. This is a great insight that will serve you well for the rest of your life (much more lies ahead than behind).
It is ripe for abuse by governments, which Apple absolutely has a history of bowing to.
Saudi Arabia WILL use this to track dissidents and homosexuals. China WILL use this for whatever they need, on a daily basis. Hell even the US will use this, I'm sure.
The only way this would be OK was if the input data (the CSAM database) was cryptographically signed and no government, no single entity and not even Apple, could change the content, with the only signing key split in 10 parts to be held personally by Bruce Schneier, the Pope, Linus Torvalds, the Orthodox Patriarch, Keanu Reeves, a couple head Rabbis and a few of whatever their equivalent in Islam is, and they had to personally review the images one by one and certify that perceptual hash 0FB89C8A7DF6AA1945B is indeed CSAM content and agree to collectively sign it for addition.
This would only work if the full IOS source was fully published, and compiled as a reproducible build, so everyone could confirm the scanning code does what it's supposed to, and is not altered with any subsequent update.
P.S.
Don't nitpick on the names, it was a deliberately absurd list of people either with a good reputation or with a lot to lose in the respectively chosen afterlife.
This is the line and it's not ok. I am astounded that anyone here is entertaining the idea that it is somehow ok. Take out the "CSAM" noun from the equation - it really poisons the argument with emotion. "Apple devices check your files against government blacklist" is the headline, and not enough of us are saying "no."
Last time I read up on LTSE I noticed that the exchange doesn’t operate differently than a traditional stock exchange. Instead the companies in LTSE adopt specific language in their bylaws that orients them toward the long-term. Is this a correct understanding?
If you aren’t implementing any exchange-level mechanisms, why does this need to be an exchange at all? Why not just create a template for corporate bylaws that you can certify, like a B-Corp? An LT-Corp, if you will.
We looked into this extensively before deciding to pursue an exchange, but found it just isn't workable. Investors simply don't believe a "certification" is especially binding, as companies can easily undo the certification at any time.
People today think of exchanges as just platforms to facilitate trading, but historically this is not how they used to be seen. Exchanges have always had a dual role, as avatars of corporate governance as well as sources of liquidity. We are trying to bring that balance back into the financial infrastructure of capital markets.
Yeah I came back today hoping this was going to be answered. I like the vision and concept of LTSE, but have yet to be convinced there are any substantial mechanisms in place that make this any different than the other exchanges.
It's probably strictly worse than other exchanges if we're considering what the point of an exchange actually is. I've tried optimistically viewing LTSE from multiple angles but an exchange just seems like the fundamentally incorrect business model for their supposed goals.
How would you make money of templates? With this model, you can profit on the value of every trade. I assume the exchange makes more when people invest more.
An exchange usually makes more when people trade more ("we're in the moving business, not the storage business") and stocks are more volatile, so from one angle it would seem like the very worst place possible to try to encourage long-termism.
You could pay for the template-producing company to monitor the template-using ones, like an auditing company or any sort of certificate-issuing one.
It seems the companies on LTSE are not bound to be traded only there so it doesn't seem like the trading would mostly go through it, since it's bound to have less liquidity than traditional exchanges.
I am a fan of Open AI, but is this not an admission that they raised more capital than they know how to deploy on research?
Similarly, Peter Thiel once made a case that if Google ever paid a dividend it would be an admission that they are no longer a technology company and are instead a bet again innovation in search. [0]
No. OpenAI would not invest their operating capital in startups - that would be legally and fiscally irresponsible. Instead, a separate entity is created to manage the fund and OpenAI controls that entity. That fund then raises money from LPs specifically for investments. I would imagine some of the profits/carry will then flow back into the parent. What this ends up being though is mostly a branding exercise to boost OpenAI's developer ecosystem, with some upside for the company itself if they are able to fund some successful startups.
Keep in mind that the former president of YCombinator is the CEO of OpenAI. That might help explain a move like this. Also recently a lot of people left Open AI at the same time. There was some speculation that they are going to start a new startup. Maybe this is a way for OpenAI to be able to invest in them.
Or the OpenAI venture fund is an acknowledgement that success requires an ecosystem that extends beyond their front door. Funding startups is a great way to signal that OpenAI thinks their stuff is so compelling that it will lead to startup-worthy ROI. It is also a way to get a track on potential acquisitions.
The alternative is a pure NIH strategy, or build something and hope for partners, both of which are flawed.
And regarding the Thiel snippet, dividends are isomorphic to stock buybacks, which Google has been doing for a while. They seem to still be a tech company, at least as far as my Ex-Googler eyes can judge.
I would take a more charitable view on their move here.
AGI research is risky from a R&D standpoint (for obvious reasons), and also tricky from a business strategy and product development standpoint. There isn't a mature business playbook of how to monetize this technology, and although they probably have some ideas, their GPT-3 API pilots have suggested that outside entrepreneurs and programmers can come up with a larger search space of potential use cases then OpenAI can come up with themselves (in the same way that AWS users create more diverse products than Amazon can envision).
It's not an admission that they can't deploy capital - it's that they see an untapped resource of creativity that they can cheaply profit from, rather than building things in-house. The would rather grow the whole pie than try to grow their own slice. It's in a similar vein to how Taiwan Semiconductor lets other companies build on top of their platform and foster trust by never competing with them. In turn, they get to partner with more companies.
If they had pivoted entirely to a 100% investment firm, I would agree with you. But it looks to me from this announcement that they have built some fundamental technology and would like others to figure out the best way to monetize it, and they want to focus on new fundamental technology. An investment fund will align incentives with entrepreneurs building on top of GPT-3.
Given the format of the application and the sectors they’re targeting for investment (companies that would benefit from applied AI, not other pure AI plays), this reads to me more like “there need to be more customers and demonstrated use cases for the tools we built, and fast” ... “and they should also be built on Azure infra”
I think its an admission that the near term benefits are from applications of existing tech, not AGI, and they have hired for folks who want to do research, not people who want to do the grueling work of making a startup.
This is fine though if OpenAI actually has an edge. I don't think they have a meaningful tech edge, you can see folks like GPT-Neo fully reimplement the ideas in papers. I also think they see this since they're looking to make a small amount of investments, and the big benefits of things like the GPT-3 API are for low experience/funding projects.
But maybe they have an edge in evaluating AI startups, and an edge in advising them beyond the typical VC. And if they do have a good repeatable edge there, this actually seems like a pretty interesting way to fund a research lab.
I don't think it has to be - I think they're thinking about how to turn that research into money in a healthy way, so as to keep doing relevant work in a super capital-intensive area and maintain their ability to exert some control over how AI is used, and they quite rightly assume that they can't both do the research and invent all of the killer apps at the same time.
It's interesting if you compare it to Bell or Xerox, right? The research lab's hackers helping make funding decisions about startups that use their secret sauce might seem funny historically, though maybe it would have been more effective.
(In practice, though, as HN is well aware, OpenAI isn't just some research lab; serial entrepreneurs who are connected with the most successful incubator ever, etc).
Similarly, Peter Thiel once made a case that if Google ever paid a dividend it would be an admission that they are no longer a technology company and are instead a bet again innovation in search.
That seems silly to me. Google is not paying dividends right now, but they are doing stock buybacks which is basically the same. However, Google also has 100k+ employees there are only so many people who can work on innovation in search at the same time.
To make things lucrative, one thing that could be done is to remove the condition that OpenAI APIs must be used. But - the people who are going to pitch to OpenAI also are opening themselves up for competition. Another option would be to spin out an OpenAI Venture firm without strings attached?
> Similarly, Peter Thiel once made a case that if Google ever paid a dividend it would be an admission that they are no longer a technology company and are instead a bet again innovation in search. [0]
Does that mean it makes this a bet against innovation in AI?
I had watched it. I'm just trying to understand what parallels you were trying to make to the Open AI story by quoting Thiel. I think he was saying Google should be broken up because as you say they have run out of good ideas and are just using their capital to keep new competition in search at bay. So by quoting Thiel wouldn't you be implying if Open AI has also run out of good ideas then they're also trying to keep competition in AI at bay?
I know very little, so perhaps someone could enlighten me. But I am curious how Apple Silicon will be for machine learning.
When Apple releases a MacBook Pro with 64GB of unified memory (assuming they will) — won’t that be amazing for machine learning? I am under the impression that GPU memory is a huge factor in performance. Also, is there any way that the neural engine can accelerate training — or is it just for executing trained models faster?
I wouldn't expect it to be particularly competitive in training large models. It's an integrated GPU with 8 cores, and the "neural engine" has an additional 16 cores. The kinds of discrete GPUs (mostly Nvidia) that people use for deep learning have more like 5000+ cores.
I think Apple is aiming more at either training small models, or running pre-trained models. For example Photoshop is starting to integrate neural filters, so NN inference performance can be important for some desktop applications.
I think it's pretty clear they're aiming at inference only. Training models on laptops is never going to be competitive. Might be fun for prototyping small models in PyTorch/TensorFlow though.
It is not. According to [1] M1 GPU can run "up to 25000 threads".
Comparing raw numbers between vendors is always tricky, but it looks like Apple's "cores" are more like Nvidia's 'Streaming Multiprocessors' (SM's), of which their cards have between 14 and 100.
M1 seems to perform similar to their older, mid-end desktop cards (1050 Ti has 6 SM's and M1 matches it in benchmarks).
I too am curious how 64 GB unified memory performs for training deep learning models. Even if speed isn't amazing, 64 GB is much greater than the 24 GB available in Nvidia's flagship consumer cards, which would allow for inputting larger images, bigger batch sizes, deeper networks etc. Also, will be interesting to see how all of the different cores are used.
No. This has been misreported. The RAM is on the same package but not part of the same silicon die. Basically the SoC is mounted next to the RAM on a carrier.
No, I don't think it is. Early itunes was a media player and music store I could use to catalog my own music as well as license theirs. Spotify is a streaming music service with a free ads based model or paid monthly subscription to get access to most commercially released music. How is that anything like Pitch vs PowerPoint templates?
I was just referring to the 'Subscription service vs One-time purchase' model. If you want to make a single presentation in a year, perhaps, not considering any differences, you are better of buying templates on Themeforest. But the convenience, cost-effectiveness of such a service, i can certainly see value
Apart from results (for whom?) being not the only thing to judge a compan culture for, I am pretty damn sure that Amazon does not, in fact, rely primarily on constant explicit threats of firing people to make people just fucking do what their boss tells them to do.
That’s interesting. Even if I look at current state of the art graphics today I don’t think for a second that it’s anything close to indistinguishable from reality (not to say it’s not good or impressive).
I guess he means how reality looked displayed on the TV screen. I think we did go backwards in that regard, at least for a while because resolution went up in some sudden jumps leaving the level of detail in the scenes lagging behind. But we're almost there now. I recently saw a dashcam video of a racecar on the news and wondered why they were showing a video game. It took ages for me to realize it was actually real but with some HUD overlays.
For someone with no knowledge about AR hardware, how is this different (from the perspective of the end user) than a traditional hololens style display?
The version of you that failed has been shattered. It’s painful, but this is your opportunity to move on to become a wholly stronger person.
You tested part of your personality in an extreme situation and you found it did not hold up. This is a great insight that will serve you well for the rest of your life (much more lies ahead than behind).