Geoffrey Hinton wrote it. I wonder if he'll have anything to say about OpenAI trademarking the term 11 years after he wrote this. Here's an earlier publication from January, 2012 talking about Hinton's 2011 "Generative pretraining" work: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/three-c...
> Geoffrey Hinton wrote it. I wonder if he'll have anything to say about OpenAI trademarking the term 11 years after he wrote this.
But they're not applying to trademark "generative pretraining". They're only applying to trademark GPT, which seems (I have very limited knowledge if there are other competing uses of the term) reasonable given that most people associate "GPT" with specific AI implementations created by OpenAI.
There were other "business machine" companies that existed 100 years ago, but that is very different from trademarking "IBM".
True. That said, it's still interesting to me, because an outdoor weather station is something I've also been eyeing, and also having trouble to find something that a) logs data, but b) not to a cloud.
They appear to have said [1] they'll supply (finance + deliver) aircraft (which presumably the Ukrainians have the expertise to operate, per [2]). They have not said they'll send in an air force (operated by non-Ukrainians), which as you point out, they don't yet have.
There are remaining MiG operators in Central and Eastern Europe. These planes have been converted to use NATO armament and they're being phased out anyway. Ukrainian pilots are already accustomed to using them. The EU could use resilience funds to buy F16, F35 or Saab Gripens for the former MiG operators. Some of these are already F16 or Saab Gripen operators.
Ukraine has no access to the air at this point anyways. I don't see this as plausible. No airports are secured, and Russia dominates the airspace right now. Even if NATO sends planes, how will they be transported there? And how will they establish a base of operations?
Depending on the model of Mig, they could operate from a hastily constructed dirt air strip. US-made fighters not so much. Not sure about Gripens.
I can't speak to the state of Russian air superiority at the moment, it could be that there are gaps/The Ukrainian air force hasn't been destroyed yet.
But even if as an idea it doesn't work out, the fact that the "peace project" organization, whose members visibly wept over the UK leaving, is coordinating the delivery of military hardware to a non-member for use in an active conflict should speak volumes about the level of support Ukraine is getting.
My guess is they'll initially sortie from Romania, maintaining IFF silence for plausible deniability, while a coordinated strike with man-and-vehicle portable SAMs retakes enough airspace in the western part of the country to support further operations.
You're proposing military aircraft owned by an EU member state should launch from their airfields in EU, sneak over the border and land in Ukraine, refuel and (re-)arm - and perhaps get a quick paint job too and have the aviation equivalent of their serial numbers filed off - then start attacking Russian forces in Ukraine, and our plan would be basically to hope that the enemy with apparently complete air superiority plus satellite capability might not notice?
I'm firmly anti-war; that plan sounds like a great way to drag the EU and/or NATO straight into this one.
This article is written by Mitsubishi engineers but in the style of a news report with a sensationalized headline ("At last" ...). I'm noticing more of these - seems like a new (?) marketing trend. Nothing wrong with that objective, but does throw me off - I typically expect hard tech from the Spectrum.
> "Suits make a corporate comeback," says the New York Times. Why does this sound familiar? Maybe because the suit was also back in February, September 2004, June 2004, March 2004, September 2003, November 2002, April 2002, and February 2002.
> Why do the media keep running stories saying suits are back? Because PR firms tell them to.
Yes. Pretty much everyone is aware of the elephant in the room. It's just not relevant to address said elephant since it has no bearing on technical discussions, which is what the author of the e-mail thread pro-actively underlined.
The fact he is a murderer might not be relevant to the discussion per-se but his unavailability to help fixes/improvements to be made is a big issue as the author of the FS.
I don't know anything about it and whether other contributors are able to give as much input as he could but judging by the comments of unfixed bugs and few commits, it would sound like it is a big risk of stagnation. No?
Everyone understands the implications for a piece of software when its principal developer disappears. Wallowing in the details won't change anything. It's been years already.
Even if they do this cosmetic change now, take effort deal with silly regressions and reeducating users, it will still take quite some time for people to stop parroting in every thread about $newfs, that it's about “$newfs, previously known as reiserfs, originally authored by a convicted murderer”. This ship has sailed long time ago. Maybe there aren't that many users remaining now to begin with.
Honestly it was really great until it wasn't. I was there for almost ten years. The pay left a bit to be desired, but for the most part, everything else was so awesome that it was cool.
Then after some management changes, everything that made it great melted away and we were left with a job that underpays, has poor work-life balance, doesn't appreciate employee time/contributions, etc. It was still a pretty difficult decision to leave; management issues notwithstanding, the group of coworkers I actually worked with every day were - and still are - really great.
Companies associated with all kinds of crimes exists everywhere. For recent war crimes, you can search yourself. For WW2, there is even a wikipedia list of companies involved with the Holocaust. One of them even own RedHat Linux now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_involved_in_...
Very much agree with the simplicity and power of separation of training, validation and test sets. Is this really a 'big data' era notion though? This was fairly standard in 90s era language and speech work.
Big enough data that you can afford not to use some of it for training! Different disciplines hit this threshold at different times -- language and speech much earlier, as you say; clinical trials not there yet.
Maybe we could talk about two cardinalities of "big" data. The first is when you can afford not to use all of your data for training. The second is when you can usefully fit highly overparameterized models.
To be fair, there's a psychology paper from the late fifties that suggests this approach. Much like the early days of double descent, this didn't attract the attention it deserved at the time.
