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

The 256GB option is +$4,000 - the overall price for 512GB setup would probably be $20k!

It needs to be a little less than double the overall price for 256GB option, otherwise it's better to get 2 256GB and link them.

you can't link onchip memory.

True, but you can link them up over thunderbolt or Ethernet. If your goal is to run local LLMs, not all weights need to live on the same computer. You can segment the workload by layers and pass the activations along the lower bandwidth interconnect with a small perf penalty. Also you get double the CPU/GPU cores allowing for better multi user/agent performance.

Ah sorry you are right I missread what you meant by it.

I was thinking the same as you as far as price per value, it does make seance to get 2x of these things IMO, but what throughput hit would you see in linking versus one machine? latency does matter, and there must be a trade off no?

You.

I agree in principle that the buck has to stop somewhere, but taking full responsibility for the actions of a fundamentally statistical system that you didn't build and have no interpretability of is uncomfortably risky for most parties, at least for anything above low stakes tasks.

Then don't use an agent for high stakes tasks. If you can't drive and accept the responsibility for avoiding a fatal collision, don't drive the car.

Do you take full credit for the output of the LLM ? If you accept the rewards for what you do with the LLM's output, it's probably ethical that you also take on the risks.

That's only true if the risks are reasonable, understood, and expected. Driving a car is risky, but if someone sells you a car that goes flying into incoming traffic because of a flaw in the design the car company is to blame. "Drivers know cars are dangerous and risky" isn't acceptable.

I find some of the discomfort and awkwardness of discussing these what-ifs is reduced, at least slightly, when we distinguish between:

1. Restorative justice, where one must fix or heal the problem they caused.

2. Punitive Justice, where one is motivated not to act on bad impulses.

Too often we blur the lines between responsibility and blame and culpability. A given set of consequences can be fair/just for one kind while "unfair" for another.


if you are not willing to assume that responsibility, then don't use it.

You buy a tool, and the manufacturer says "this tool will occasionally malfunction, by design". You reply with "ok, I'll keep it in mind. In what ways can it malfunction, so I know what to look for?", "I dunno. It could be anything. A-NY-THING! And of course we are not responsible for any bad stuff that happens (but do share your success stories, as they look good in marketing)"

If you accept those terms, it's on you.


I agree. That is a great reason why you shouldn't let an LLM do those things. If you must use an LLM, sandbox it. If you can't trust your sandbox, then stop using the LLM until you can trust the sandbox. "But I find it really useful to YOLO without safeguards" is not a valid excuse.

You probably shouldn't use a system if you don't understand what it might do. You are the culpable force setting the action into motion.

That's only true if you reasonably can be expected to know that it might do whatever it did and you haven't been mislead by the people selling the system. If you use a product as directed, for the thing it was advertised to do, and it causes harm no reasonable person would expect, the company is to blame.

> taking full responsibility ... is uncomfortably risky

I look forward to someone building an agent, getting criminally charged for actions it takes, and then trying to use this argument in court.

"your honor, I'm uncomfortable being held responsible for this"

people are responsible for the actions they take. hiding behind "I just created an agent, then the agent committed the crime" is simply never going to fly.

in the real world, outside the Silicon Valley "agentic everything" filter bubble, this is a laughable question.

try to argue that you shouldn't be charged with attempted murder, because you didn't stab someone directly, instead you built a Rube Goldberg machine and the final step of the machine did the stabbing.

and likewise, try to argue that you didn't commit tax fraud or whatever, because there was actually a Rube Goldberg machine built out of GPUs in between you and the fraudulent documents. both attempts will be equally successful.


I don't think that argument was meant for a court, which is there to deal with existing law. I believe it was meant for what the law should be.

That graph has to be made because an Exec didn't like that graph went down to the right instead of up and to the right. How do you make a graph with 0 on the far right and counts up by going left of 0? What number line is that?

The game theory is all wrong, this is a cooperative game, either they both win or both lose. I don't see how the Donkey getting hit by a car should be classified as "Donkey wins"

Donkey is also a collective noun for the donkeys and so the army that is the donkey wins.

¡Viva Donkey!

You think? Here's the U.S. unemployment rate during the great depression

        1929: 3.2%
        1930: 8.7%
        1931: 15.9%
        1932: 23.6%
        1933: 24.9% (Peak of the Great Depression)
        1934: 21.7%
        1935: 20.1%
        1936: 16.9%
        1937: 14.3%
        1938: 19.0% (Economic recession during the Depression)
        1939: 17.2%
        1940: 14.6%


It's only a fraction of the effect (and of course there was also over financialization), but 20% of the US population was farm labor in the 20s, that fell substantially (and there was the dust bowl) up through the 40s as tractors replaced a significant fraction of all farm labor (perhaps 1% per year). Efficiency does not always drive consumption.

Sure seems to rhyme. Call it Jevon's Tractor Paradox.

Something else certainly happened in the rest of the world about that time too!


Looks like you're the straw that broke the camel's back. Thanks man. ;-)


Every Thursday, the ice cream man comes down our street. The price is usually around ~$20 to buy happiness for a family of 4.


Hi, effective altruist here. I'm going to start a fund to buy your family $50,000 of ice cream a year to maximize total happiness.


The Plain Writing Act of 2010 established the requirement that content for the public is written for its specific audience. These guides help you to understand how to create, design and test content so your specific audience understands it.


It appears open models were used to create this slop.

That opening is so hard to understand what they are trying to say, from the font and how it's written. It took me several times rereading to even grasp.

Plus the article is filled with cryptic things like:

    Open ships easy.
    Open deploys hard.
What?! Is it a meta answer to "the state of open source AI" question?


From the title of a chart:

> The venture-funded open-source ecosystem: total disclosed funding, USD M

> Bars grow as you scroll.

The bars, in fact, don't grow as you scroll. And I don't even see why they should.


On my device, bars grow as I scroll. I want your feature, being able to just scroll the static page without elements jumping around.


> The bars, in fact, don't grow as you scroll. And I don't even see why they should.

On my device, they grow as I scroll to them.


I think it’s supposed to mean “open source is easily shipped, but open source is hard to deploy”? Or perhaps “deploys hard” is a figure of speach, as in “we are deploying this open source and we are deploying it /hard/“? I don’t know, it’s not good.


This is truly some proper slop. The "PRODUCTION RATE BY COMPANY SIZE" graph has bars that start offset from the text underneath them, which LOOKS like a mistake that happened due to word wrap, but if you visibly compare the 54% to the 55% bars they seem to have compensated for this?! I can't tell if his was on purpose or accident and it's impossible to take the data seriously!

This is on mobile in portrait. In landscape the text doesn't wrap or offset anything.


So good at style, so weak on substance


Great idea! I just created one for Pi

https://github.com/mkaz/pi-modoro


Fantastic. I think these small productivity tools embedded in harnesses is pretty powerful. I especially like that you can get the AI to use it and also just pop into the CLI. Also nice to generate useful web dashboards etc


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

Search: