I've been using something similar with ZFS, 15min frequency with autopruning (Sanoid) and the snapdir mounted for the agent. Has worked well and a big plus is being able to tell the agent to just solve it's mistake via restore from the snapdir.
The reason speculative decoding shows diminishing returns in batched workloads is because the principle of both is the same.
Speculative decoding predicts a group of tokens and verifies this group using the main model in one pass instead of decoding each token separately. Eg. for this group, the weights are loaded from RAM per group instead of per token: roughly the same computation is performed but not the same memory movement (and other overhead like kernel launches).
Batching utilizes the same mechanism, so speculative decoding is essentially an attempt to batch a single stream using prediction. An attempt, because the verification may reject some tokens if the prediction was inaccurate.
>LLMs are still bad at low-level hardware optimizations, but really good at high-level composition.
I disagree. While yes they don't have all the architectural quirks of every GPU memorized, they are able to extract such optimizations from ISA docs and online guides. Now with 1M context available on frontier models, they can even fit the whole ISA definition in context (RDNA 3.5 here specifically) and spit out swathes of optimizations to try. The rest is just bruteforcing a single goal which they are extremely good at.
Or that's how simple it'll look until you have subtle bugs to solve somewhere deep in your stack.
Anyways, low-level hardware optimized GPU kernels has been an exceptionally good use case for agents in my opinion. They have far more trouble in other domains like doing GUI.
If you look at Anthropic's recent kernel optimization challenge, and the human leaderboard, humans are soundly beating Claude's best attempt.
I think the reason, as parent suggested, is that LLMs are great at composition (mash-ups/regeneration - this is essentially what they are trained to do), and not so great at innovation. How well they can do relative to a human, on a low level optimization problem, is going to depend on degree of similarity of the problem to things they were trained on and/or have access to.
For me writing manpages as a spec worked well. While the format is unintuitive and tedious (at least to me), I used AI to format the manpages from my descriptions and rendered to PDF to review. Though it's been mainly useful for CLI utilities.
Once I got the manpages ready and the way I wanted, I just stored those in an empty project folder and told the agent to implement as specified in a language of my choosing.
Maybe for other development scenarios like GUI there is some "native" way to spec the project in a common format like this.
The GPU has INT4, INT8, BF16 and FP16. Notably no FP8 or FP4.The official GPTQ-Int4 release from Qwen is a great quant for this but custom kernels are still rare for this hardware.
Sarcasm aside, while still not acceptable, some people might not have the means to buy new items to replace what they lost in a crash. So it is understandable for some people to make the choice of taking their luggage with them in such an event, as they might not have the wealth and/or insurance necessary to replace those items afterwards.
Of course the solution would be to make airlines liable to replace passengers' luggage in the event of a crash and inform the passengers that they will do so, but that's not how the world works currently.
Aren’t they? AFAIK it’s standard (if not required?) for airlines to have insurance which includes passenger legal liability.
Were there any recent crashes where passengers weren’t compensated? e.g. after US Airways 1549 everyone received at minimum $5k (or higher depending on damages) for lost luggage.
In general the airlines just ask you to leave your luggage. If they were legally obliged to replace all your items, they would inform you of such.
On international flights, an airline is liable for up to $1700 per the Montreal Convention. This might cover say half of one's laptop, which no matter how stupid it sounds, makes taking your luggage with you the only financially sensible choice in a crash (unless you have insurance). Now obviously such an event has other priorities than just financial ones, but it's no surprise if people choose to take their luggage with them.
On US domestic flights the amount is somewhat higher, $4700. However even this might not be enough for some. On EU domestic flights it's 1800€.
Airlines however are free to pay any amount they want, but they are not legally required to pay more than the limits set by law. So it is possible you will be reimbursed in full, but you wouldn't know that beforehand.
> This might cover say half of one's laptop, which no matter how stupid it sounds, makes taking your luggage with you the only financially sensible choice in a crash (unless you have insurance).
If there's no smoke, no visible flames, and you can do so safely without obstructing other passengers' egress? I can see the argument, sure.
Obviously if the cabin is filling with smoke or there are visible flames or other obvious dangers, the financially sensible choice is to evacuate ASAP as funerals often cost more than laptops.
I don't think a stressed rando inside the plane is in position to evaluate how soon it will combust. Not even the firemen on the outside often have a clue.
Eh, I'd defer to them over some rando on the internet who's only seen a video that shows a short snippet of what went on.
The best anyone here can do is screech about not following the default suggested practice of leaving the luggage but the person who took the bag was actually there. Perhaps they had to pick it up because it was on the floor (ceiling) in their way. Not much harm in carrying it if it's something that small anyway.
I’ve realized that fires are a way bigger issue than you might imagine after a crash — things can go south really quickly. Multiple stories of planes going from “fire outside” to “people suffocating and burning to death in their seats” in minutes. Here’s one of a 737 in Manchester, taxied of the runway intact, 55 people died: https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/fire-on-the-runway-the-m...
I might have taken my laptop bag in such a case out of habit before reading these stories, not so much now.
I'm not arguing it's right. Frankly, I think it's stupid the way things are. But I can understand why some people make such choice.
I guess my argument mainly is that people who take their luggage are not stupid, instead their behavior may be highly rational, however we have the means to change it with by making such choice irrational and I wish we will.
I agree with your parent’s post explaining its a sensible financial choice. However as you noted there’s other things One could consider like other’s passagers survival chances or firefighter taking dangerous steps during their work.
Taking your language is financially sensible but socially dumb and selfish. It seems an acceptable choices in the countries that values individual liberties and financial independence, but the other half of the world look very bad at that behavior.
$3400 is a pretty pricey laptop for someone short on cash.
Also, am I correct in understanding that these requirements are the base requirement for any crash and don't actually absolve the airline of the full liability in case they are found to be responsible for the crash?
In terms of explaining the passenger's behaviour, though - presumably they didn't know this, and didn't have time to research it on their phone during the crash.
Airline customer service standards are very low; I can see how a person making the decision based on just their experience with airlines would conclude it was better to grab their carry-on if it was safe to do so.
Everyone thinks they are the main character of the story. I should get to keep my bag because I am the protagonist, but everyone else is supposed to leave theirs, so that we can escape faster! The rules don't apply to me specifically because I am the only person in my life that matters.
People who interact with the public and work for BigCo routinely bark orders that are non-optimal for the customers individually but convenient for the company.
Customers have been trained to stop and think twice when someone tells them what to do. That's just the reality of the world we live in.
> I give zero shits if you think you’re going to lose your stuff.
Yeah, last time an airline lost my bag they said pretty much the same thing.
The way I see it, there are two types of idiot:
You're an idiot if you delay the evacuation of a crashed plane. Shit's on fire, yo.
And you're an idiot if you expect an airline will make you whole. Airlines are in the business of delivering the worst customer service they can get away with - they don't even guarantee that a person who has booked a seat on a flight will have a seat on the flight.
> Sarcasm aside, while still not acceptable, some people might not have the means to buy new items to replace what they lost in a crash. So it is understandable for some people to make the choice of taking their luggage with them in such an event, as they might not have the wealth and/or insurance necessary to replace those items afterwards.
One person's means are not more important than the lives of the people on board. Stuff can be replaced; get everyone to safety first, then worry about stuff.
And yeah airlines are liable to replace stuff in the event of a crash and pay for damages if it's their fault. If it's the fault of the airplane manufacturer, they will have to; Boeing paid out billions to all parties involved in accidents and groundings of the 737 max:
> On January 7, 2021, Boeing settled to pay over $2.5 billion after being charged with fraud over the company's hiding of information from safety regulators: a criminal monetary penalty of $243.6 million, $1.77 billion of damages to airline customers, and a $500 million crash-victim beneficiaries fund.
Telegram has, by design, message content accessible to whoever runs the servers. WhatsApp has gone to great lengths to not have that.
Obviously there’s client security, potential backdoors, unencrypted backups, and many other things to worry about. But I don’t see a scenario where it fares worse than Telegram, and many where it’s significantly better.
Whatsapp has to have some kind of escape hatch if not back door simply because of the amount of heat it doesn’t get (think of all the regimes who are ok with it).
I believe that escape hatch to be cloud backups, which are heavily encouraged by the UI and not end-to-end encrypted by default. iMessage has made the same compromise.
As long as enough people click that checkbox, law enforcement has access and Meta/Apple are out of the news without having lied about or hidden anything.
My understanding is that WhatsApp has never made claims comparable to Telegram or Signal.
I also can’t tell if you’re being sincere. I was under the impression that Telegram was considered significantly less secure than Signal and that the matter was mostly settled. I’ve been seeing the following talking points repeated for years now.
>Genuine question, in what scenario is the self hosting setup and maintenance worth it?
Maybe if you're a huge org with a dedicated security team and so on, which could easily handle managing such service. I guess at a certain point it would bring cost savings at a scale in comparison to using Bitwarden, where it costs per team member or seat. Inhouse team has fixed costs in comparison.
Of course for smaller orgs or individuals there is little sense in hosting security software yourself. No way you're going to have enough time to manage the service and keep it secure, which is where almost all of such software's value is derived from.
>If you can't distinguish bad from good with LLMs, you might as well be throwing crap at the wall hoping it will stick.
This is why I think LLMs are more of a tool for the expert rather than for the novice.
They give more speedup the more experience one has on the subject in question. An experienced dev can usually spot bad advice with little effort, while a junior dev might believe almost any advice due to the lack of experience to question things. The same goes for asking the right questions.
