Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | tefkah's commentslogin

Theoretically it would be much less expensive to just continue to run the existing models, but ofc none of the current leaders are going to stop training new ones any time soon.

So are we on a hockey stick right now where a new model is so much better than the previous that you have to keep training?

Because almost every example of previous cases of things like this eventually leveled out.


What perspective change? Your brains splattered on the wall? While I am also grateful to be alive, I don't think it's that hard to imagine other people being in situations where they feel deeply unhappy about being born, and that that feeling really can't be dispelled with a simple "perspective change", unless you mean suicide.

I think you're misreading the comment you're responding to. Its parent comment said that life can be a blessing or a curse depending on how you choose to look. They responded by asking whether the word "curse" is appropriate if it can be changed based only on perspective.

I read the comment with a bit more grace. I just assumed they were skipping to the end of a journey without any of the subject's empathetic nuance. Meaning, most philosophical, spiritual, psychological, and mindset approaches all "end" with the idea that we have a choice in how we feel about things. That choice is choosing to feel things differently.

Those ends would say that suffering is a product of our own making. It is a choice. Bad things can happen to you, but your perspective on the situation creates the suffering (resistance, guilt, personalization, inability to see it as a change agent, etc.).


It doesn't even need to be situations, just a particular flavor of brain chemistry.

Im pretty sure the commenter means that they do not experience (or at least see) life as a gift, but as the complete opposite. Anti-natalist-y

thanks for sharing, that’s wild! i’ll definitely take stretching more seriously now

damn that’s a good idea


What are you talking about? No one’s writing their paper in HTML.

The problem is having the submissions be in TeX and converting that to HTML, when the only output has been PDF for so long.

The problem isn’t converting HTML to PDF, it’s making available a giant portion of TeX/pdf only papers in HTML.

If you’re arguing that maybe TeX then shouldn’t be the source format for papers then I agree, but other than Typst (which also isn’t perfect about HTML output yet) there aren’t that many widely accepted/used authoring formats for physics/math papers, which is what ArXiV primarily hosts.


This is what I'm talking about. HTML/CSS is more powerful than PDF or TEX.

https://csszengarden.com/



i think that specific turn off phrase is more of an indicator of llm usage then age imo


typst is great, but there are many many steps between “markdown isn’t sufficient” and reaching for typst.

1. typst only really has pdf output at the moment 2. so much less tooling available (linters, site builders, converters etc) 3. much less of a markup format, extremely tightly coupled to a specific tool (typst compiler)

again, love typst, but it has (atm) so much fewer applications


Typst has already experimental HTML output and it specifically has a markup mode (default mode).

Conceptually Typst is a superset of a Markdown with a slightly different syntax (e.g. = instead of # for headers)


mdx does tho. you could just not define any components, then you can nest markdown inside html no problem


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: