Finally, someone gets it!
Instead of going away, the AI will transform. It’s sort of in a bubble state rn. Once it pops, the fields where it’s useful will keep on using it, whilst those applications that have no real grounds for existing will either have their plugs pulled or resources cut.
Not compared to models from 00s or 10s…
What’s with the reading comprehension, people? I was talking about pre-AI boom vs. now, not now vs. 1-2 years ago, c’mon.
Pointing to a wiki page instead of actually explaining stuff isn’t going to change my mind.
Now, if you’re talking specifically about LLMs, however (which you could’ve just said so, ffs). I think their scope of application and resources wasted on them will be significantly reduced. Look at what happened to blockchains and NFT. Basically, I expect the same to happen here.
Apparently, not to me. Explain.
Edit: Downvoting a person for asking clarification? Shame on you lot.
It’s not going anywhere because it’s already been here for a very long time, you just didn’t know about it
What people call “AI” is just Machine Learning.
Chatbots, OCR, Text-to-Speech, Speech-to-Text, Computer Vision, Web Search, Spam filtering or Fraud detection, Personalized ADs, even your phone’s camera processing algorithm.
It’s all Machine Learning, but now under new and fancy “AI” name. And it’s been here for decades.
The reason it blew up this much only now is because people realized that the more data you feed into it, the better the output becomes. And so they started exploring it more, to the extent of causing valid ethical concerns.
And they don’t pay for you skipping them, which is a win for advertisers, but a loss for Google.
For real, tho
Max is supposed to be, well, maximum
Which is not only not the case since they had to put a “+” on top of it, but it is also, apparently, wasn’t good enough, so they slapped “Pro” to boot.
Even without the “AI” crap the name is ridiculous.
Why couldn’t it have been Ryzen 495? Sure, make it Ryzen AI 495 even, whatever. But Max+ Pro? Seriously, AMD? Did they let a 12 year old chuunibyo name their products? What in the f happened here?
My only complaint was that you have to really try to make a similarly-priced build cost $3k, I don’t know what you would even put there to bring the price that high up.
Other than that, yeah, Steam Machine costs about what a regular PC would cost.
if I walk into my local Micro Center and try to build a comparable machine, I’m getting dangerously close to $3,000.
I have a massive issue with this claim. Just what kind of parts (comparable in performance) do you choose to bring it up to that point?
This claim sounds bogus. Send the pcpartpicker list.
At most, you should end up at like 1500$, but only if you spend on looks or are clueless of what you’re doing.
It’s really not difficult to make a PC with similar or possibly better performance at that price.
I’m saying it’s not needed at all.
It’s good for teaching kids quickly, but it’s not a real rule you have to follow.
Well, in my case, the order of operation in uni wasn’t brought up even once. But it was also a prestigious one with notoriously challenging math courses, so I may be a little out of touch in that regard. (Let me brag, ok?)
No, I do not think those conventions are needed. Because they aren’t fundamental. You don’t really know math until you understand how PEMDAS or w/e came to be and why it is the way that it is.
Not following those conventions doesn’t automatically make your solution incorrect. That’s the most important thing.
It shouldn’t matter how you solve as long as it is a correct solution.
There may, indeed, be inconsistencies in how things are written out. Whether 2x is the same as 2×x, for example. It’s common practice that it isn’t, but it’s also often not important.
If you write out the solution, people will understand what you mean by simply following it.
Compare:
6÷(2+4) = 6÷2(1+2) = 6÷2÷3 = 1
And
6÷(6÷3×(1+2)) = 6÷2(1+2) = 6÷2×3 = 9
They are written in the same manner, but those are 2 different equations to begin with, with their respective correct solution. For the same reason why 2x and 2×x may be the same or not. (Replace 1+2 with x, you’ll get 6/2x vs. 6x/2)
It’s not a matter of order of operations, but a matter of context. Whether juxtaposition took place or not. In real research, 2x always has a context.
Besides, the equations aren’t usually written out that way, aren’t they? You would do this (except for the dot in multiplication, unless it’s needed)
Not really.
Math, at it’s basis, doesn’t have an order of operation, as I’ve illustrated in my previous comment by breaking the left-to-right rule, doing addition before multiplication and ignoring brackets until the very end.
It only exists as a method of teaching students because it works. It’s simple and easy to remember.
The rest is me explaining how basic properties work:
Instead, mathematicians have long derived the basic properties that are supposed to be taught to students later on and is pretty much the first thing you learn in mathematical analysis in uni.
Those are:
This is what math is. Every equation is solved using those properties. Every theorem can be broken down into those actions. (Technically speaking, you can break it down even more - into addition only)
This is why in GEMA, BODMAS, etc, you have multiplication and division before addition and subtraction. Because (a×b)+c=a×(b+c) isn’t a property that exists. Try it. The sides won’t always be equal.
And those properties are also the reason why you don’t have to abide by an order of operations. Commutative and associative properties directly contradict them without making the solutions incorrect.
Out of curiosity, is there any other reason for 128GB other than “just to max it out”?
Because if you don’t actually need it, you’d get better performance with 64GB or 48GB due to being able to use higher clock speeds. (Depends on the CPU)
Let me just, ahem
1-2+3/(3+3)×2+3×6/3 = 1-2+3/(3+3)×2+1×6 = 1-2+3/(3+3)×2+6 = 7-2+3/(3+3)×2 = 7-2+3/(6+6) = 7-2+(1/2+1/2) = 5+(1/2+1/2) = 5+1=6
Ahh, yes, DMAMDSBA :P
Let’s just say BODMAS/PEMDAS isn’t all end-all be-all. They’re good, but there’s also better
For those interested, see: basic number properties
enter it into any calculator and you should get 9
Have you tried it, though? My Casio says it’s 1
That’s because it treats 2(1+2) as 2x and not 2*x
It’s called juxtaposition and is the reason why people find this notation ambiguous. Some people account for it, some not. Same with calculators. The scientific ones are most likely to give you an answer of 1
Edit: Look, this one even warns you about the implicit multiplication
Usually, no sign before the bracket means juxtaposition. Scientific calculators do account for it (not all, tho), while regular ones may not.
So 2(1+2) is really (2+4)
Compare 2/2x and 2/2×X where x is (1+2)
The first is 2/(2+4)=1/3, the second is (2/2)×(1+2)=3
Basically, either 1 or 9 can be considered correct. And yes, it’s ambiguous.
Also, there’s no real rule about solving left to right due to associative and commutative properties: 1×2×3 = 1×(2×3) = (1×2)×3 = 3×1×2 = 2×1×3 = 6
Do I hear a “steamdeck upgrade”?
Sure hope so.
deleted by creator
This screams: “I don’t want to parent my kids, so let the government do it instead, and do it to me too along the way.”
Do you really not see how that takes away your own agency? Both in terms of raising your kids and your own privacy.
Touché