• 297 Posts
  • 23 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: June 9th, 2023
  • ylai@lemmy.mlOPtoNot The Onion@lemmy.world•Scientist who gene-edited babies is back in lab and ‘proud’ of past work despite jailingEnglish
    291·
    6 months ago

    He was criticized also because the girls were not in danger of becoming infected. See e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6724388/ :

    The Chinese episode has also generated other issues. Several notes demonstrate that this was an experiment and not a therapeutic intervention (even He Jiankui called it a ‘clinical trial’). The babies were not at risk of being born with HIV, given that sperm washing had been used so that only non-infected genetic material was used. Further, even though one of the parents (or both) was infected, it did not mean the children were more prone to becoming infected. The risk of becoming infected by the parents’ virus was very low (Cowgill et al., 2008). In sum, there was no curative purpose, nor even the intention to prevent a pressing risk. Finally, the interventions were different for each twin. In one case, the two copies of CCR5 were modified, whereas in the other only one copy was modified. This meant that one twin could still become infected, although the evolution of the disease would probably be slower. The purpose of the scientific team was apparently to monitor the evolution of both babies and the differences in how they reacted to their different genetic modifications. This note also raised the issue of parents’ informed consent regarding human experimentation, which follows a much stricter regimen than consent for therapeutic procedures.

    Other critical articles (e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8524470/) have also cited in particular https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4779710/, which states in the result section:

    No HIV transmission occurred in 11,585 cycles of assisted reproduction using washed semen among 3,994 women (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0–0.0001). Among the subset of HIV-infected men without plasma viral suppression at the time of semen washing, no HIV seroconversions occurred among 1,023 women following 2,863 cycles of assisted reproduction using washed semen (95%CI= 0–0.0006). Studies that measured HIV transmission to infants reported no cases of vertical transmission (0/1,026, 95% CI= 0–0.0029). Overall, 56.3% (2,357/4,184, 95%CI=54.8%–57.8%) of couples achieved a clinical pregnancy using washed semen.

  • ylai@lemmy.mlOPtoGaming@lemmy.ml•Kotaku EIC Resigns Over New Editorial Edict
    3·
    7 months ago

    From my own statistics how many I feel worthy posting/linking on Lemmy, the most direct alternative to Kotaku is Eurogamer. PCGamer, PCGamesN and Rock Paper Shotgun are occasionally OK, but you have to cut through a lot of spam and clickbait (i.e. exactly this “50 guides per week” type of corporate guidance). Not sure if this is also the state that Kotaku will end up in. The Verge sometimes also have good articles, but the flood of gadget consumerism articles there is obnoxious.

  • ylai@lemmy.mltoAsklemmy@lemmy.ml•How long til Blu-rays get phased out
    131·
    9 months ago

    Retention, or the lack thereof, when cold-stored.

    In term of SD or standard NAND, not even Nintendo does that. Nintendo builds Macronix XtraROM in their Game Card, which is some proprietary Flash memory with claimed 20 year cold storage retention. And they introduced the 64 GB version only after a lengthy delay, in 2020. So it seems that the (lack of) cold storage performance of standard NAND Flash is viewed by some in the industry as not ready for prime time. Macronix discussed it many years back in a DigiTimes article: https://www.digitimes.com/news/a20120713PR201.html.

    And Sony and Microsoft are both still building Blu-ray-based consoles.

  • ylai@lemmy.mlOPtoStable Diffusion@lemmy.dbzer0.com•GitHub - leejet/stable-diffusion.cpp: Stable Diffusion in pure C/C++English
    4·
    1 year ago

    The novel bit of this project is actually the usage of GGML quantization from llama.cpp for Stable Diffusion, which can offer lower RAM usage and faster inference on CPU than all the previous CPU implementations without the benefit of low bit quantization, which was known to make CPU and low RAM LLaMA inference feasible.

    The important long term implication is that people have been targeting the incorrectly sized Stable Diffusion model, if the goal is quality on commodity hardware (this includes GPU, too). For example, Stable Diffusion where Stability AI has gloated so much how it fits commodity hardware is slightly less than 1 billion parameters. The smallest LLaMA that people nowadays can happily run on commodity GPU or CPU is already 7 billion parameters. And even OpenAI’s DALL·E 2, which many called prohibitive because “you need a 48 GB GPU” (which is not true, with quantization), is just 3.5 billion parameters.

    For additional context, Stable Diffusion using CPU has been done before, though with repurposed frameworks rather than a custom C++ project. Notably, there has been a Q-Diffusion paper (https://github.com/Xiuyu-Li/q-diffusion), but the result was obtained by simulating the quantization, and e.g. the GitHub repo not actually offer an implementation with actual speed-up.

  • ylai@lemmy.mltoMachine Learning@lemmy.ml•ChatGPT is David Copperfield
    2·
    1 year ago

    The original comment is dismissive and clearly ment to be trivializing of the capacity of LLMs.

    The trivializing is clearly your personal interpretation. In my response, I was even careful to delineate the arguments between autogressive LLM vs. training for plausibility or truthfulness.

    You’re the one being dishonest in your response. Your whole post, and a large class of arguments about the capacity of these systems rest on it is designed to do something

    My “whole post” is evidently not all about capacity. I had five paragraphs, only a single one discussed model capacity, vs. two for instance about the loss functions. So who is being “dishonest” here?

    […] emergent behavior exists. Is that the case here? Maybe.

    So you have zero proof but still happily conjecture that “emergent behavior” — which you do not care to elaborate how you want to prove — exists. How unsurprising.

    “Emergent behavior” is a worthless claim if the company that trains the model is now even being secretive what training sample was used. Moreover, it became known through research that OpenAI is nowadays basically overtraining straight away on — notably copyrighted, explaining why OpenAI is being secretive — books to make their LLM sound “smart.”

    https://www.theregister.com/2023/05/03/openai_chatgpt_copyright/