idk but naive me sees the article say the model needed 158GB of RAM so I guess 10x 16GB GPUs? Apparently retail price is $1k per 5080 16GB but they're actually selling at $1.5k so I guess $15k for just the GPUs.
158GB number is for Mistral Medium 3.5 128B model, Muse Spark is way larger.
Muse Spark Open would require more than 1.6TB of RAM in its native precision (BF16) for the model parameters alone. In a 4-bit quantized (NVFP4) format, the model memory footprint is lowered to about 493GB.
In any case, I'd much rather run GLM 5.3 Flash on that sort of hardware. Better fit for the performance profile, and will probably beat Muse Spark Open in most uses.
There's always Edge (increasingly favored by IT here). Our machines used to ship and favor Chrome, but Edge has been the new IT-gods blessed browser ever since we bumped to Windows 11. Apple seems to be the only tech-titan that is not interested in extending their browser onto other platforms. So be it.
Misaligned to exploit the trial process is actually something to consider carefully. I would not put it past a drug company to design a phase 3 trial that has some subtle bias towards commercialization. And if we're just getting cocktails and trial protocols from the AI, it would be very wise to be skeptical.
For example, if the prompt is something like "give me a cocktail that is most likely to succeed in this specific phase three trial" there are any number of ways the AI might find ways to game specific features of the trial design.
If you're talking about the artcraft stuff, it's strange. The codebase goes back to 2016 as a monorepo but not the full suite and was recently split out as separate apps and other parts of the Adobe suite added. The CLAUDE.md [1] are... interesting and left me puzzling about it.
I was mostly interested in the pdfcraft (have been appreciating https://www.nobloatpdf.com/)
> Clean-room.
> * Never read, disassemble or copy anything inside the Acrobat bundle (names and listings only). Never open Contents/Resources/JavaScripts/.
> * Behaviour comes from public docs, specs (ISO 32000-2, the Arlington model) and black-box observation (plan/acrobat/).
> * Never copy GPL/AGPL code. MuPDF, Ghostscript, Poppler, veraPDF and DSS run only as external oracle processes.
> * See plan/README.md §Clean-room and plan/adr/0001.
It really looks like they have AI running Adobe (and other apps) as sources of truth and have rules against disassembly or including source from GPL projects which left me pondering the ethics of it.
Yep, their work used to be in a mono repo. That's still up there. They have a reference to how to find it. I didn't read all the history but it does date back to 2016. Seems like it was mostly a web app and not open source until recently is the vibe I was getting from it.
I guess I feel two ways about this. It does could be a "working with the garage open" sort of thing where these are known to be unverified and they're just letting people see the sausage being made.
But that also means marketing and PR should shut the fuck up until things are verified. And they should more clearly annotate lack-of-verification status on their repo.
I believe this is nice marketing trick. Don't have human names have following effects
- AI can work alone and produce value
- There no person whose career on the line, and who is responsible.
- You can skip lot of time on verification of papers, and just show as it is.
Goals of marketing people obviously don't aligned with science goals.
Sure, unverified claims are unverified so there's a real risk of reputational tarnish. Why is it anyone else's job to verify a papermill? Would any journal accept an article that doesn't name people who are accountable? It should correctly be viewed as abuse of peer review. Let them rot.
It reads like it too. I don't fully understand why a sentence like "It's the signature that costs." makes it into machine output (It costs... what? What does it cost?) But here we are.
That's kinda what I'm getting at I think. We've created a patchwork hell full of arbitrage and petty harassment and everyone's just kind of fine with it
Similarly, the car purchasing process is a nightmare. Carvana faced that one the hard way trying to sell across the US and ended up forming their own lobbying band to push for digital and electronic titling and registration.
The problem is you’re optimizing for bureaucratic efficiency over the needs of the people. There’s even issues with that at the state level that would be way worse.
So many Californians live in valleys that trap pollution. Strict emissions regulations have an immediate, tangible impact. South Carolina doesn’t have the same local issues and their standards vary. Likewise, tint stuff is mostly a police / safety issue, and is more of a problem in major metro areas. High tint is an issue in the Bronx. Not so much in rural Alabama.
I’d argue that the worst part of the system we have now is that we have a weird hybrid as disenfranchisement has become a political priority. Integration between states is driven by compacts between states and Canadian provinces and mediated through private entities like AAMVA and NLETS. That has facilitated other sharing agreements with insurers and other entities that is a serious and significant privacy violation.
We should be able to get a free passport card for identity, and make driving privilege licensure, vehicle registration, etc a purely state matter.
> The problem is you’re optimizing for bureaucratic efficiency over the needs of the people.
There's a reason there are 50 states and not just one federal land. The needs of the people of Montana are definitely different than the needs of New Yorkers, so expecting the two states to have the same laws is just illogical. It's also why things like the electoral college is a thing to prevent the population centers dictating what the rural people have to do.
The electoral college was created because citizens couldn’t reliably be expected to travel to vote. That time has long since passed, since voting stations are generally (modulo places that are actively shuttering them to disenfranchise people) scattered around enough that it’s not arduous.
Plenty of other countries with rural areas seem to do fine without one. They also usually have much better / more granular representation, instead of a hard cap of 435 for a population that is orders of magnitude larger than at the country’s founding.
We will not all (even 80% of us) be using electric vehicles in 10 years, or even 20 years. I don’t think even half of new vehicles will be fully electric by then, let alone half of all vehicles on the road.
The kind of pollution created by brakes and tires (namely, particulates) is much easier to filter out than the kinds of pollution created by internal-combustion engines and their fuel tanks.
I wear a cheap disposable N95 mask when I walk along busy streets, which filters out probably at least 98% of the particulates. (The "95" in "N95" stands for 95%, but that is 95% of the particles that are hardest to filter: both smaller particles and larger particles are easier to filter. So since it is quite unlikely that all or most of the particles produced by brakes and tires are precisely the size that is hardest to filter, I estimate that my cheap $2 mask that can be reused for dozens walks is probably filtering at least 98%.)
In contrast noise pollution and tailpipe pollution and fuel-tank-evaporation pollution are much harder to filter (at least for pedestrians on the move) so a drastic reduction in one and a complete elimination of the other two is an extremely welcome development.
Specifically, the gaseous pollution from tailpipes and fuel tanks is composed of many hundreds of different compounds, many of which can be effectively absorbed by filtration media, but many of which cannot be. I don't bother to try to filter out this kind of pollution (i.e., gaseous) when I walk along busy streets because the filtration media makes the mask much bulkier and heavier than my N95 masks are and because the filtration media costs more (even plain activated carbon, the cheapest and most useful media for gases) and remains effective for a much shorter duration before it must be replaced.
Yes, states are not only fine with determining their own driving laws, they want to determine their own driving laws. People do not have uniform opinions on what our laws should be.
reply