The secondary isn't well represented either: that radiation case isn't focusing any X-Rays and the stairstep in the tamper would tear it in two when ablation started. Plus, as you note, the primary is impossibly screwed up as well, with what looks like a single point of initiation and zero details on the boosting. It doesn't just look simplified, it looks like every part has been corrupted with a feature that makes it impossible to mistake for real while being slightly less crude than the "Mastercard" or British designs.
Besides, real engineering doesn't just need a schematics, it needs details, and some of the missing ones are notorious (FOGBANK) and inherently difficult to figure out with any confidence in the absence of weapons tests (or even more expensive giant buildings crammed to the gills with lasers).
So yeah, not very useful to an aspiring designer. I understand the author's surprise but I suspect they really did just become a few notches less crazy about the redundant protection on information that has been public for 30 years.
Also the mental models of proliferation are warped by secrecy. For instance, Iraqis got caught building Calutrons when the official line was to watch out for plutonium reprocessing and centrifuges... Despite the fact that the enriched uranium used for the first nuclear weapon used in war was produced with a Calutron!
Anyone responsible who thinks about this stuff, even if they don't have a security clearance, will look into the question of what the ethics are and what the legal consequences of secrecy laws are if you talk about certain things you think about. I had dinner with a nuclear scientist at a conference, for instance, who told me that he hadn't told anyone else about his concern that Np237 was the material that terrorists would most want to steal from a commercial reprocessing facility (if they knew what we knew) and I told him it was no problem because people from Los Alamos had published a paper with specifics on that a few years earlier.
The purpose of capitalism is to establish, reinforce, and perpetuate a class hierarchy where the people on the bottom must constantly pay to exist while the people on top constantly get paid to exist. This shit isn't a side effect, it's the entire point of the exercise.
Unfortunately in their rejection of capitalism, the people have mostly decided to do feudalism, i.e. legitimacy comes from land ownership and land tenure. It is even hereditary: heirs get to pay much lower property tax than transplants.
I don't think we're going to see eye to eye on capitalism, but even Marx would agree with me that it's better than feudalism.
Spoken like a true Marxist. The purpose of Marxism is to literally kill hundreds of millions of people who oppose the Marxist way. Like they did during the 20th century in the countries where Marxism prevailed (even briefly).
Progress should be saying "we don't have to spend so much of our time and effort on the ladder".
Our forefathers would be baffled to see that we've coerced crops into tenfold their natural yield, conquered lightning, the wind, and the sun itself, and yet, millions of people are still working 40+ hours a week to not starve or go homeless.
It's in volume production. This is what Huawei uses for its Mate 60 phones. They've sold 30 million units. From articles I've read the features on the chip are actually quite precise, which lead people to think the yield is at least decent.
How they will get to 3nm is another question but back when Intel made its decision, 7nm was on the horizon so choosing to not go the EUV route is not as dumb as it may look now.
Over years of math undergrad and grad school I tried very hard and was never able to get this to work, so you're not alone. I was able to reliably reproduce hopeful feelings after sleep, but upon investigation the "new leads" were either things I had already tried (and forgotten why they didn't work) or they were the type of imprecise high-level vague direction ideas that were never difficult to generate and still had 99% of the true effort remaining to grind through the details.
I disagree, their character does not matter, business incentives matter. Nothing would change, if other personalities were in charge, since profit maximization is still there.
The "it's just business" people will double dip and still inject advertising and sell your data while also directly taking your money for a product. Cable TV is a paid product that does both. Cellular carriers sell your data about your location and the usage behaviors of the services you pay for. Car manufacturers sell your movement data for a car you paid for. Sellers of any financial services are all in cahoots about your debt, incomes, holdings, credit worthiness, etc. Even brick and morter stores pull shit with rewards programs to track your buying behaviors to optimize advertising to you.
And when those same companies make public some front end framework, or sponsor a major open source product, or create some novel distributed acid compliant database we (the HN community) rally behind them and say huzzah.
Ok, so let bankruptcy wipe out the shareholders and then let someone more responsible buy the good parts at auction. Or nationalize it. If shareholders aren't taking risk and responsibility, why the hell are we putting them in charge and letting them pay themselves massive dividends?
Excellent observation. Setting "preserving XYZ corporation" as a national priority is focusing on the wrong thing. Corporations are temporary constructs formed out of combinations of resources (human, capital, IP, etc) to organize and maximize the value of those resources.
If we really care about fostering and furthering these resources, we need to free them from being held captive, under-utilized and mis-allocated inside a repeatedly failing corporation - not propping up failing corporations. If the resources in question really are both viable and valuable, releasing them will allow the free market to do what it does best - efficiently allocate resources.
No central planning committee created U.S. economic leadership by picking which corporations to subsidize, so no central planning committee can "preserve" or restore that leadership by picking "winners" to subsidize. We need to let Schumpeter's creative disruption keep doing it's job of cleansing, educating and renewing the market through re-allocation of resources. That's what put us in the lead and it's what will keep us there.
1) No other US company is capable of using the parts for leading edge semiconductors.
Case in point: GlobalFoundry had EUV machines but returned them to ASML as they weren't able to compete technically and capital wise.
They would be the best to take over Intel's assets but they weren't competitive years ago, why would they be now?
2) idk where you're getting the idea that Intel is paying massive dividends when it has been one of the worst performing tech stocks for years.
The SW companies juiced up on low interest rates have done far better.
Shareholders already have huge risk and have lost big on Intel. Leading edge is too cutthroat, if it goes to bankruptcy it will be too late to ever catchup. It’s probably already too late and we just don’t know that we’re living in a Chinese century.
Earlier this month, Intel announced that they've suspended dividend payments entirely. Prior to that, their dividend payments were decent but far from "massive".
If the meaningful choices have been made before the AI is engaged -- which seems likely -- then this might have the opposite effect. For example, a few years back one of my coworkers was arrested on a domestic violence complaint. We searched up the charges and were surprised to find an extremely lurid and descriptive account -- right alongside a dozen other identical-but-for-the-name accounts for others arrested on domestic violence complaints that night. Clearly the local police department just had a "domestic violence template" into which they dropped peoples' names without much thought. This level of carelessness would have been much less obvious if they had a LLM change up the details each time.
So all the highly unique, contextually relevant and aesthetically pleasing AI art that I am seeing pop up in blogs, chats, documentation, presentations, etc where before there would have been nothing or maaaybe some ultra-generic clipart, this explosion of creativity is slowly erasing the human spirit? Nah. Looks like the opposite, if anything.
"It all looks the same" -> there's plenty of room for better prompting and models. Just look at civit.ai -- the "sameness" problem is just low skill with the new tools. The floor used to be "looks like a kid drew it," now the floor is "looks like the default StableDiffusion style." Replace with whatever domain you are interested in, I am using art as an example because it is comparatively further down the maturation curve. In any case, the ceiling is high and it still takes effort to reach, but the bar is raised everywhere.
That an interpretation. The other interpretation is "Hey I'm not a talented artist. This tool allows me to express an idea I couldn't otherwise." Yes AI art is used in scams, and AI doesn't give you good taste. By I don't think it indicates laziness.
I cringe when I see one, but sometimes the articles are good. Apparently, some people have great writing skills but suck at visual taste. Though, arguably, they aught to know that about themselves.
Is that a little like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face? Good to have principles that propel forwards and not become entrenched by them, wouldn't you agree? That said, you will save, or at least not waste, an awful lot of time - there was already too much and now a lot more tripe out there since so-called a.i..
> Good to have principles that propel forwards and not become entrenched by them, wouldn't you agree? That said, you will save, or at least not waste, an awful lot of time - there was already too much and now a lot more tripe out there since so-called a.i..
In this case, it's not really entrenchment, because there are viable alternatives.
To each there own — I loved the AI art for about one month but since then it’s become insanely triggering. It’s everywhere now and it all has this same “feel”.
What used to just be an unsplash image that I never gave any thought to is now a serious detractor that can often overshadow the content (for me)
I’ve clicked out of articles and videos many times because of the AI art. I agree with OP that it feels like it’s washing out a lot of individuality at the moment.
I prefer a stock image as well. At least it was crafted by a human being behind a camera. And as a pro photographer, and someone who takes thousands of photos a month and views thousands more, there is something indescribably human about human works that are lacking in AI.
There is no way you could tell the difference between stock photo and AI generated art. Stock photos are created to be generic and soulless. That allows them to have the most broad applicability.
Adding an image does not automatically make a post better. I'd rather just not have any image at all than something mindlessly thrown in just for its own sake, regardless of whether it's generic or generated.
AI image generation has taught me two things: never had it been more obvious that taste is only cultivated through a careful, studied engagement with human arts and culture and never has this been more irrelevant to the majority of people.
The American slop factory is the predominant cultural idiom and like this country’s factory farming is now an entire automated machinery for mass producing and force feeding everyone poison. I’m hoping some subset of countries will go AI art Galapagos to preserve a trace of our humanity and aspire to something beyond the median of a Google image search.
It is in my opinion because it has that extremely generic feel, even more than clip art because at least the clip art had some character from the artist.
> So all the highly unique, contextually relevant and aesthetically pleasing AI art that I am seeing pop up in blogs, chats, documentation, presentations, etc where before there would have been nothing or maaaybe some ultra-generic clipart, this explosion of creativity is slowly erasing the human spirit? Nah. Looks like the opposite, if anything.
None of that art represents the individual experience of a person any more. It's all a psychotic averaging. I've seen that art too and I find it disgusting.
I don't see anything people are producing with AI as representing the human spirit. I see it as humans being plugged into a machine pushed to create and create and for what? What's the next step? It's horrific and should be destroyed.
So someone who has lost the use of their voice and uses a text to voice program is disgusting and has no human spirit? I would disagree. In the same way new AI tools allow people who could not express themselves otherwise to express themselves. Does it mean they have good taste? Not necessarily, but it is authentic communication.
I’d argue that the person who lost its voice have no choice, the people choosing to draw by AI to express themselves do it by sheer laziness and to get quick gratification, but that seems what technology is mostly about, putting any effort in any pursuit is so old school.
> So someone who has lost the use of their voice and uses a text to voice program is disgusting and has no human spirit?
You are twisting my argument. I never said a PERSON using AI doesn't have human spirit. Rather, that in GENERAL, the content generated by AI does not have the subtelty of human expression compared to the human-made stuff. Of course, the person that lost their voice naturally loses some expression by using an artificially-generated one.
That doesn't mean that they can't express themselves in other ways.
Come on, these counterarguments are too easy to refute...
The problem with your analogy is that paying interest is an active measure. It takes effort. The higher the rate*(outstanding debt), the more effort. This isn't a choice between injecting nothing vs injecting steroids, it's a choice between injecting sedatives vs injecting nothing. Raising the interest rate is like injecting a sedative. How much sedative should we inject? How much sedative can we inject?
I disagree, as this implies that an interest of zero is the normal default. Why would it be? Why would someone lend someone else money, when they get nothing for it?
Besides, real engineering doesn't just need a schematics, it needs details, and some of the missing ones are notorious (FOGBANK) and inherently difficult to figure out with any confidence in the absence of weapons tests (or even more expensive giant buildings crammed to the gills with lasers).
So yeah, not very useful to an aspiring designer. I understand the author's surprise but I suspect they really did just become a few notches less crazy about the redundant protection on information that has been public for 30 years.
reply