You still get Covid after you are vaccinated. Fun fact if you are vaccinated before you catch Covid you cannot develop an immunity to the nucleocapsid is this good is this bad I don’t know tune in in 10 years when we know more
Wow that’s so scientific considering those are completely different strains of Covid and one infection you got immune naive and one you got after an infection and a vaccination. It’s so clear as mud
Everyone got the vaccine and everyone still got covid. you have to get the vaccine and then covid and then more vaccine and then more Covid and you’re saying it’s clear to you what the benefit risk is in this jumble of vaccinations and Covid vaccines really you know what it is you’re sure you read the paper of the research it’s out there for everyone to just look at?
An open source project? How will it download github amd then the entire Internet? The model requires 10x20k cards to run. You are dreaming, this is a factor+ more complex than stable diffusion. Big players only
The model doesn't need all the knowledge encoded in its weights, just the ability to look things up effectively. I believe this will be available to the general public sooner rather than later.
It will fit on a desktop computer within a few years as researchers figure out how to reduce the size of the model. It could be sooner because the knowledge that it is popular to reduce the size of models and disseminate them drives a lot of people to try to accomplish it. Like when the four minute mile was first run, and then suddenly many runners could do it.
How is an open source project going to download the entire Internet? The model requires 10x20k cards to run. You are dreaming, this is a factor+ more complex than stable diffusion. Big players only
According to Altman, each chat costs a few cents to evaluate. Let's also assume that there are some performance breakthroughs. Also, maybe i don't want to run the whole internet, for me it would be enough if it was trained in a scientific corpus. Also, it only needs to be trained once by someone.
I assume people believe claims like this with zero evidence because it is convenient and alleviates any cognitive dissonance (re: Democrats being for the little guy and not just as 'corrupt' as Republicans). If SBF did donate the large amounts of money he claims he did as "dark money", surely he could prove this.
> If SBF did donate the large amounts of money he claims he did as "dark money", surely he could prove this.
To what end? Selectively believing what SBF says is a Rorschach test. If it was something that goes against your your politics "Oh, he is obviously lying" while simultaneously "He is running his mouth and confessing his crimes unforced".
It's particularly notsble because those who disbelieve SBF spending dark money agree with his reasoning dor doing so. I his own words, he said most journalists/media folk are on the left, and he wanted journalists to like him, so he publicly donated to the Dems and made dark money donations to Republicans. He also specifically mentioned Citizens United for enabling this.
To the end that people might actually have to accept the claim as true rather than 'believing' in it or not.
Granted, he doesn't owe anyone any sort of proof of his claims. You can make as many assumptions as you want about what it says about the people who believe or disbelieve the claim, the fact remains it's unsubstantiated, just an idea he threw out in an interview. And just like I am not owed proof of the claim, he's not owed my belief in it.
> If it was something that goes against your your politics "Oh, he is obviously lying" while simultaneously "He is running his mouth and confessing his crimes unforced".
Why do you feel coming up with a strawman argument is appropriate here? Is it just to point out that my disbelief in his dark money claim must mean that I also adhere to these two contradictory quotes, therefore I'm an idiot who believes contradictory things? Great argument. And maybe others have said this, but I didn't. I've said nothing about SBF "confessing" crimes, and as far as I can tell, he's trying to play dumb and pin the blame on other hated figures like Caroline Ellison, and he has not confessed to anything.
At least, this is how I read your comment. It may not be a generous interpretation, I apologize for that, but at least I'll acknowledge it. Posting an example of contradictory statements in direct response to my comment (as an of illustration of the silliness of people who agree with my position) is, I think, even less generous.
So he's lying about giving to the GOP ... why exactly? What would he get out of saying this?
If you listen to the interviews he's given you can tell when he's being reaally careful with his wording so if he's later caught he can wriggle out of any accusations of lying. And you can tell that there are some questions where he was really uncomfortable and didn't want to give any answer. But when they're talking about the donations, it's very light, breezy, matter of fact and importantly the justification is simple and believable. He uses some really far-fetched reasons to excuse some of the other stuff what happened - and that's obviously causing raised eyebrows - but I don't buy that he's lying about this.
I also don't understand the fixation on this specific thing, it feels like people don't actually have any curiosity about the FTX bankruptcy and just want to score a few points for their side in the game of politics.
> If SBF did donate the large amounts of money he claims he did as "dark money", surely he could prove this.
Yes, I'm sure someone who carefully managed their massive fraud/theft empire to conceal movement of funds, to the point of making sure the corporations involved didn't keep records of who their employees were, what their job duties were, what bank accounts they controlled, etc., would have no reason to avoid providing supporting documentation of political donations that were deliberately made in a way which doesn’t require reporting, because there is no way such documentation would also reveal previously concealed parts of the mechanisms of the crimes he has committed.
