Being able to comfortably sit back / lie down and work is an interesting proposition. The Apple Vision Pro is too bulky and expensive to carry that whole category on its own, they need an 'Android equivalent'. But I think Apple messed this up by creating an absolute patent minefield (some 5k patents for AVP features iirc).
I'm looking forward to the day when we can implant a chip in our neck that will override the senses. Imagine having your body doing a hard workout session while your mind was at work or on vacation
If you think this is a joke and humanity can’t be that evil then look up the the „Brookes Ship“
> Brookes was reportedly allowed to stow 454 African captives, by allowing a space of 6 feet (1.8 m) by 1 foot 4 inches (0.41 m) to each man, 5 feet 10 inches (1.78 m) by 1 foot 4 inches (0.41 m) to each woman, and 5 feet (1.5 m) by 1 foot 2 inches (0.36 m) to each child. However, the poster's text alleges that a slave trader confessed that before the Act, Brookes had carried as many as 609 captives at one time.
That's the samsung galaxy xr which is cheaper and lighter but it's not good enough run high resolution content for long periods without thermal throttling
The thing is, the AVP has a ton of quality-of-life features, eg relating to gestures, and most of them locked behind patents. Looks like we'll have to wait 20 years before other devices will be able to match it (or whatever the expiry date is on those patents).
That’s how it works with the Quest 3 on an updated OS. If you’re using hand tracking then you gaze + tap thumb and finger together to select, or pinch and hold to grab a corner for resizing or a border for dragging.
That’s not how it works, there is no gaze support. I just double checked and couldn’t find it in any Accessibility or Experimental settings. Apologies for the misinfo.
(Also no inward-facing cameras ofc)
What I was thinking of was on iPhone. It was Eye Tracking + Dwell for selecting.
Hands act as a pointer on the Quest, with a pinch action to select and drag.
afaik the AVP has a dedicated Lidar sensor for gesture detection. I'd say Apple has managed to patent more basic stuff than that (pinch-to-zoom, rounded corners,...)
Oh, that'd make sense. I think the quest 3 has a depth sensor, but they mostly use that for room setup. I don't even think it has IR emitters for low light.
But that's the age old question about patents, if they're being granted too much they stifle innovation and competition instead of the opposite... (which is the point you were making as well).
On the quest 3, I've felt like the screen is just a bit too low res to use comfortably as a monitor anyways, so I imagine the Frame won't be much different. The better weight distribution should help a lot though.
With formalized math, you only need to validate the problem statement (in theory, in practice agents have already managed to exploit Lean compiler bugs, but the incidence of those should decrease enough to be practically lusable for 'blind' validation of AI proofs in the foreseeable future).
And he also gave up his trophy, which is displayed in a random corridor of a random math museum in Paris, where visitors pass by without looking, lacking most, if not all, of the context. Only because I knew the story and the man did I recognize the object for what it was.
I don’t think solving a millennium prize problem can be reduced to some DoorDash economics of “spent Y to make X.” What if it took someone their entire professional career to solve one of these problems, would it not be worth it by the same logic?
Surprisingly this is actually rather fitting in terms of time scale. When you consider it took ~10,000 agents 88 hours, or 880,000 hours to solve. That's 14.5 years in agent time of continuous 365/24/7 processing. Of course, humans solve things much more efficiently (and didn't also need the massive pre-training of every expert on the planet for 1,000,000,000 human years equivalent). But yeah, human researchers can solve a problem like this in a decade or so, while sleeping, teaching, traveling, and taking breaks, only working a few hours a day on the idea.
I remember first hearing about NMS' concept and wishing that they would take the general idea but downsize it by at least 10 orders of magnitude. A universe with 1-100 millions of planets would still feel absolutely massive and way more than individual players would be able to exhaust, yet it would allow the creators to do a bit better curation, allow players to actually meet, maybe add more hand-crafted experiences. Basically, give up on technical purity in favor of fun.
I specifically do not want hand crafted planets, it's one of the first things I look at for a space game, 1. is the planet procgen, 2. does it let me land on planets, 3. can I dig/shape the terrain (voxel). I'm aware of NMS and Empyrion - Galactic Survival.
In some ways, Empyrion has better planets than NMS in my view and far fewer of them, it might be the game you're looking for.
They added real multiplayer several years ago. If you go to the same system another player is in, they'll be there. (As well as everything anybody has ever built there).
But you are pretty much guaranteed never to meet anyone while roaming around randomly. Only if you go to a galaxy center, the Anomaly, an expedition, or matchmake into someone else's game (is that still a thing?)
I don't think that follows from the published results. Would have been an interesting hypothesis to add though, and quite easy. Just throw the same setup at some benchmarks.
I wasn't aware that we have access to raw reasoning tokens? I thought what you get is a kind of summary. Does the author have some kind of privileged access or was my assumption wrong?
But for the question studied here it probably doesn't matter - overlaps in the publicly available output may be indicative of distillation (or not), regardless of what it is. I would just find it surprising that the Chinese labs would use it so trustingly. The publicly released reasoning trace is the first place where I would suspect some distillation poisoning to be injected.
They reference this paper which describes a method to decrypt reasoning traces (by sending the encrypted trace back to the model and asking it to transcribe it):
They do store the reasoning locally. It's encrypted, though.
Few weeks ago there was a new paper out where researchers took the encrypted reasoning tokens and injected it into a new session with a week or model in the same family that they could reliably jailbreak. They would then ask the model to repeat its reasoning and the results were pretty consistent.
They used the LLM as a decryption oracle of sorts.
Reasoning works as long as there is a consistent latent space representation. Any kind of poison will just become part of the representation. There's evidence that even directly training on encrypted reasoning traces works, because the length is already a strong signal.
The article clearly distinguishes between open source and open weights models, and the headline and parts of the article state that it's open source models that are having a moment. But it doesn't list any examples. The only model families explicitly named are open weights only.
Could someone clarify whether there are actual open source models that are competitive with the likes of Gemma (mentioned in the article), or is the headline just wrong?
Congratulations! I was going to comment on the scroll field in particular when I saw this. I didn't even realize you had to hand-craft the component, but it's such a nice UI idea in general, the way the scrolling works and how the content above changes.
Frankly, that's the one part I would have done differently. Mixing font sizes rarely looks good, but that's just my personal opinion. If you want to visually indicate intensity, I'd have used color, or rather saturation. Not the text itself, maybe a small pill next to it. But I don't think it's necessary, the order already conveys some sort of ranking, I don't think cardinal information adds much here.
You must be referring to SEPA Direct Debit, which would be very risky to use to siphon funds. There's an 8 week no-questions-asked refund policy, 13 months for unauthorized transactions, if the payment fails (eg due to insufficient balance), the payee is charged a non-refundable cancelation fee. [0] And that's all separate from any legal troubles for fraudulent charges. I don't know why Germans use PayPal over SEPA, but I'd be surprised if SEPA Direct Debit was the reason.
reply