WalnutLum

Those aren't open source, neither by the OSI's Open Source Definition nor by the OSI's Open Source AI Definition.

The important part for the latter being a published listing of all the training data. (Trainers don't have to provide the data, but they must provide at least a way to recreate the model given the same inputs).

Data information: Sufficiently detailed information about the data used to train the system, so that a skilled person can recreate a substantially equivalent system using the same or similar data. Data information shall be made available with licenses that comply with the Open Source Definition.

They are model-available if anything.

Those aren't open source, neither by the OSI's Open Source Definition nor by the OSI's Open Source AI Definition.

The important part for the latter being a published listing of all the training data. (Trainers don't have to provide the data, but they must provide at least a way to recreate the model given the same inputs).

Data information: Sufficiently detailed information about the data used to train the system, so that a skilled person can recreate a substantially equivalent system using the same or similar data. Data information shall be made available with licenses that comply with the Open Source Definition.

They are model-available if anything.

LLMs as they stand are already approaching the improvement flatline portion of the sigma curve due to marginal data requirements increasing exponentially.

It's a known problem in the actual AI research field that nobody in private industry likes to talk about.

If it scores 40% this year it'll marginally increase by 10% next year then 5% 3 years later and so on.

AI doesn't follow Moore's law.

You're anthropomorphizing LLMs.

There's a philosophical and neuroscuence concept called "Qualia," which helps define the human experience. LLMs have no Qualia.

How do you do this with a tablet? Can you buy like a wheel sensor or something?

Unless something has changed recently you still have to submit builds to Nvidia to have them train the DLSS kernel for you, so FSR is substantially easier to integrate.

This is why I think eventually FSR will win over DLSS in the end, despite DLSS having better performance.

For the usability of the clock, likely nothing.

I did mention In another comment that there are a number of advantages a round clockface provides to the creation of the clock, however.

Yea that's kind of what I was thinking when I said eventually handwriting will go the same way.

If people never encounter it and do all their writing on keyboards, it'll eventually be a useless skill as well.

From a practicality standpoint, a round clockface is easier to create a mechanical drive system for.

You can create a digital mechanical face (see: Flipboard style numerical displays) but they usually require more gears and are more susceptible to wear and tear than the gears of a round clock face.

The simplest designs for mechanical digital displays actually just take 24 hour and 60 minute/second circular displays and hide the other numerals as the clock face spins around. Technically this I suppose counts as both analog and digital?

Example:

As for electronic displays? Nah not much of a reason to use a round display unless again, you have an electric-mechanical drive and want to save on gears and parts.

It floors me just how many people in this thread feel like analog clock reading is a useless/outdated skill.

But I'm of the opinion that there's no such thing as a truly outdated and useless skill, so I'm not sure I have the capability to empathize with those people...

How so?

I genuinely don't understand the clock-face-reading-is-a-useless-skill opinion so both seem equally important to me.