> there are ordinary looking trucks puttering about on Taiwan's highways with likely tens of millions of dollars of chip inventory sitting inside. Like what happens if one of them gets into a crash? Will Nvidia miss earnings because of this?
Wow that's amazing. When he was talking about needing to move wafers around I was thinking surely they can't just like truck them around but nope, that's the whole thing
I've been using this DeepSeek model the whole day today after building with 5.6 Luna extensively over the last week and I would disagree, at least for Rust + OpenGL.
DeepSeek just spend almost 2 hours trying to figure out why terrain textures were not working. It tried everything over and over again, it even had reference code for meshes on how to setup the rendering with materials, and it could just not do it.
I finally gave up and gave it to GPT-5.6 Luna instead, and figure out in a single prompt after 20 seconds, that the terrain mesh was being initialized with None in the material slot.
Other tasks it has managed to figure out at least, but it is significantly slower than GPT-5.6 Luna and it requires a lot more iterations.
That's roughly my experience. Luna is extremely efficient and at higher levels of reasoning and longer running tasks more capable.
Reading the DS reasoning is wild, it's constantly going in circles. The most minor lack of clarity in your prompt and it will spend ages going back and forth on what you meant. It reasons 5x longer than the preview which makes it really slow now as well. We did a lot of work to nudge it to be decisive and improve our evaluation setup to there's more clarity, and it helped but only marginally.
Ours is a full-stack app one shot test so it includes backend, frontend, design, and QA/testing. It's graded by Opus xhigh and Sol xhigh and the grades are averaged.
DS4 preview would finish in 20 minutes flat on high reasoning and grades 6/10. Luna high gets 9/10 in about 30 minutes. DS4-final is crazy - at high thinking it's taking over an hour and getting ~8 but only had one successful run as I got tired of waiting so long after many early abort/retries trying to debug why thinking was so long. The lowest thinking still takes over 45 minutes, and with thinking off it actually is finally closer to preview in time but actually get's a much more varying result anywhere from incomplete to 6 it seems.
Costs per run DS4 is best but not actually by a lot as it's spending 10x the tokens with all the reasoning and mistakes. It's a very brute force model and I really preferred preview in many ways for how predictably fast it was.
Side note, Spark 1.2 is a nice model for this test, best in frontend design and fastest to get results together, though not nearly as efficient as Luna. Grok scores similarly to Spark but at like $50/run vs the contributor Spark costing $1.50.
Edit 2: btw it tests a team of agents working together in a special harness and stack. So 20 minutes is for 8 agents essentially. That said everything was built around DS as it was the cheapest to iterate against so even with that advantage the new one struggles.
Your napkin math only shows that the market is identical. There's about 35m businesses operating in the US. So by selling to 10% of those you sell the exact same number of robots...
The difference is that some of those businesses might buy a lot more than just one robot. As many as they currently have employees doing robot work for a human salary.
In the US (parent mentioned US specifically) I think that's just Frontier now that Spirit is gone. I mean technically that's doable sure but idk if I would say trivial it's really limited on routes and the experience is terrible from what I understand.
I disagree. The point of the frontier models is to do everything as well as possible ("AGI" race or whatever) but smaller models with some RL are going to be the clear winner for a ton of use cases. Think about all the use cases for LLMs that would never be economical at frontier inference costs, and in no way need it. You don't need or even want a phd polymath helping you with small productivity tasks that most people use computers for every day. It's often overwrought and annoying. I don't even really like the frontier models for coding for this reason. They're constantly blowing up scope and you have to fight it constantly.
No, I’m saying we live in a horrible world but complaining about the marine life killed here is like worrying about plastic shopping bags.. I’d really rather we didn’t kill animals tbh, but when it comes to growing our food we have little choice right now.
It works by introducing natural predators of the harmful pests into the plantation or by setting up traps for them (and many of these traps doesn't need any kind of chemicals, except water).
So, you can grow crops, fruits and veggies without playing Destroyer of Worlds. They came out more delicious and nutrient-rich, too!
Well it's kinda whataboutism, but I made a similar comment on a video about an environmental crime (a copper mine had dumped an entire lake's worth of toxic sludge into a valley).
The author of the mini documentary said something about how deeply disturbed he was and how he really thought humans were better than this.
I thought that was kind of funny since, yeah the sludge lake is nasty as hell (and if the dam holding it back breaks, it's not gonna be good), but I had to think, maybe he should visit a factory farm for his next video.
That's a far worse horror, and regular folks contribute to it every day without thinking. (I forget the exact number, but something like 80+ billion animals live through that every year.) So I think it should get a little more attention.
(Not vegan, just think we shouldn't be awful towards animals.)
You got it right: around ~70 billion land animals in 2013, 1-2.7 trillion fishes [0] and 25 trillion shrimps [1]
But can you compare:
- a fish that lived 1 year wild then died by pressure or asphyxia in a net during 15 minutes
- a chicken that lived 40 days in a cage
Instead of raw count, the Welfare Footprint Institute [2] propose a framework:
> quantify animal welfare by systematically measuring animals’ affective experiences—specifically, the intensity and duration of their negative (painful) and positive (pleasurable) states […]
>The Welfare Footprint Framework (WFF) is a method developed to quantify animal welfare by systematically measuring animals’ affective experiences—specifically, the intensity and duration of their negative (painful) and positive (pleasurable) states.
We got utilitarianism for chickens before GTA 6! But yeah that's roughly matches my own intuitions. A literal lifetime of suffering doesn't seem like the right approach here.
>25 trillion shrimps
Holy crap. That's not even a comprehensible number!
So I'm not against animal products (not even meat) per se, just against keeping them locked inside in cages.
(And also, it should go without saying, but I've seen the footage, I'm against paying psychopathic factory farm employees to treat them horribly...)
A return to traditional farming methods would obviously require a significant worldwide reduction in meat consumption though (and the prices would go up a lot I think), due to the increased land requirements.
I haven't given the fishing situation much thought (I don't eat fish), but that ties in with "stop devastating natural ecosystems" which seems pretty straightforward to me (just for basic self-preservation reasons).
There might be attention between "traditional farming" and that though, because having them on land instead of compacted in a giant industrial cube obviously requires way more space :/
I don't know, it doesn't seem like there's any good solutions here. (More vegan propaganda? That doesn't seem to be working very well...)
The issue associated with whataboutism is that it is a deflection strategy. It aims to steer the focus away from the issue at hand. Commonly regarded as intentional manipulation or lack of adherence to social conversation norms.
Yeah Whataboutism is typically used to diminish the severity of the original issue being responded to.
I'm not sure if that's exactly the right word here, i.e. in my example earlier I'm obviously not defending lakes of toxic sludge. I just thought it was remarkable that someone claimed a lake of sludge was the most morally devastating thing they'd ever encountered, on this planet, where the mere act of making a sandwich typically involves a far more horrifying causal chain (e.g. the animals lived in darkness, in a cage so small they couldn't even turn around).
Maybe there's a better word for that? Putting things into perspective? I don't know.
Isn’t that a good thing sometimes, assuming focus is a limited resource? Shouldn’t problems be addressed in order of importance? Is it whataboutism if I tell someone to stop polishing a wrecked car?
Focus (on a society-wide level) is not so very limited. One of the strengths of our whole society being fragmented into a bunch of distinct organisations, is that they can all go off and solve different problems at the same time.
> Shouldn’t problems be addressed in order of importance?
Most of the really big problems facing society can only be addressed through multi-solving (i.e. something like climate change isn't going to just hang around waiting for us to solve one sub-problem at a time). Not to mention, the solution space is often extremely interconnected - for example, finding alternatives so that society can eat less meat helps address both climate change and the horrors of factory farming at the same time.
in civilized countries, industrially farmed animals live short, uneventful lives devoid of hunger and pain, injury and disease, heat and cold, then die instant, painless deaths. in the wild, the kind of animals we farm rarely get to die of old age - most end up being mauled and eaten alive by predators.
their lives are only bad if you assume they possess adult human level of conscience, which they obviously don't.
I don't know how narrow your definition of "civilized country" is, but a majority of industrially farmed animals do not live the kind of lives you describe. I will link the EU regulation for laying hens for exemple, and maybe it will change your mind as to how farmed animals are treated?
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...
A few numbers I personally find telling:
- 550 cm² caged area per hen (roughly 10" by 10")
- Seven hens per cage
- Cages 45 cm tall
- No requirement for ever going outside
I know some animals usually have it better (cattle) but industrially farmed chicken and porks really are miserable, without even going into the levels of stress and disease they go through.
again, you're ascribing human level of consciousness to much simpler creatures driven primarily by instinct.
and you are aware that even humans, with our much longer lifespan and much higher cognition, can endure living in captivity for years just fine, right? hell, even outside of captivity, a double digit percentage of us doesn't have a single room of living space, and the only outside most of us see is covered with asphalt and concrete.
Your logic implies that intellectually impaired people also don't experience pain or pleasure.
I do imagine they experience a lesser degree of psychological suffering, of the kind created by mental processes, if some of those processes are absent. But the basic pain of the type experienced by a being who is caged and killed, that's just physical.
I've sometimes heard the words pain and suffering used to separate these two types out. If you accidentally hit your toe on the table, that's pain. If you then call yourself an idiot for doing that, that's suffering. But that's not a very mainstream use of the word, I just just don't know better one for it. I think "physical suffering" and "psychological suffering" are more helpful.
Anyway my point is, that as far as we can tell we're on the same pages animals as far as physical suffering goes.
Did you see those videos where factory workers are kicking piglets and things like that? Apparently those jobs attract a very certain type of individual.
Good thing you're totally sure they don't have consciousness though. The alternative would be a bit unpleasant I imagine.
they have some consciousness, but again, not as much as a human. and again, most of humans lived in similarly abhorrent conditions throughout most of the history.
Wow that's amazing. When he was talking about needing to move wafers around I was thinking surely they can't just like truck them around but nope, that's the whole thing