I've seen various claims to this (eg [1][2][3]) but nobody reall knows. These may all come from one uunsubstantiated claim. It is I think widely accepted that Mythos is ~10T parameters.
I've seen figures that suggest GPT-4 was 1.8T parameters and cost upwards of $100 million to train (also unsubstantiated), in which case the Mythos figure might be inflated and also include development costs.
Does it have a carrier service when it arrives? That is the part that matters. They don't care whether you have a piece of hardware that just sits idle. They don't want people placing phone calls that can't be traced back to an identity that can be physically located and arrested.
Currently the reference implementation is for WordPress, but we’re working to bring it to Typo3 and other software at the moment too. The protocol is comprised of a core plus per-software extensions when needed.
I see. Are there other similar projects for other ecosystems? I guess more broadly I'm intrigued by the idea of the decentralized supply chain concept, the way you described it sounds like it was more broadly applicable.
You can check out the protocol at https://github.com/fairpm/fair-protocol - anything WordPress or Typo3 specific are in the extensions, and the core protocol is self-contained. We'd love to work with more ecosystems to bring FAIR to them, and we've already had some discussions with others including maintainers of popular (dependency) package managers.
One nice thing about LittleSnitch on linux is that it comes with a web UI by default. Is there anything like that for headless systems using OpenSnitch?
I get the appeal; the Little Snitch UI is undeniably shiny. But for the headless Linux nodes in my Proxmox setup, I’ve never really felt the need for a proprietary dashboard just to see my network state. I’d much rather export my logs to something like Grafana or just check my AdGuard dashboard at the edge. It feels more "Linux" to keep the tools transparent and open than to invite a mystery binary onto my system just for the sake of a pretty graph.
> No. LLMs do not confabulate they bullshit. There is a big difference. AIs do not care, cannot care, have not capacity to care about the output. String tokens in, string tokes out. Even if they have all the data perfectly recorded they will still fail to use it for a coherent output.
Isn't "caring" a necessary pre-requisite for bullshitting? One either bullshits because they care, or don't care, about the context.
They're presumably referring to the Harry Frankfurt definition of bullshit: "speech intended to persuade without regard for truth. The liar cares about the truth and attempts to hide it; the bullshitter doesn't care whether what they say is true or false."
The bullshitter does have an objective in mind however. There is some ultimate purpose to his bullshitting. LLMs don't even have that. They just spew words.
Can you cite this? That seems absurd.
reply