It feels like the Web is breaking. More and more sites are retreating behind Cloudflare, captchas and PoW defences. When reading Wikipedia on my phone, I have noticed for a while that sometimes half the thumbnails on an article fail to load. Non-corporate browsers are even more unusable than before.
> This release introduces the SFNNv16 network architecture, reducing binary size by removing redundant threat features…
This is nice to see. One of my few gripes with NNUE engines is their huge size compared with the old “HCE” engines I was accustomed to (which were usually hundreds of KiB or low single digit MiBs in size). I will trade off size for superior playing strength but at a certain point it becomes hard to keep justifying a 2x increase in size for what seems like ever diminishing practical returns. I am still searching for a strong NNUE engine that is ~10MiB or less. I have found Marvin, which is small at 1.8 MiB, but it is nowhere near as strong as Stockfish.
I have been wary of the risks surrounding AI since watching Robert Miles on Computerphile more than a decade ago. Since then I have paid at least some attention to developments coming out of AI safety research. Even back then the discussion was fraught with doubt which, given the nature of this topic, was to be expected. It is unfortunate that it is worse now, when the stakes are much higher.
There is no fundamental difference between symbols inscribed on a stone tablet with a sharp tool versus symbols etched onto a reflective disc by a laser. In both cases you are recording symbolic information on a physical medium; they both record digital information.
The true difference between digital and “analogue” lies in the nature of the representation and interpretation of information, that is whether they are descriptions (symbolic) or analogies. The shape of the groove on a phonograph record is an analogy of a sound wave signal. The pits in a compact disc represent numerals which give a description of the amplitude of a signal at a given point in time.
> Maybe if we had some versioned web standard that lagged behind the "real" ones so sites could say "StableWeb 2.0 Compatible!" or something.
There have been a few attempts at this already and I have something like this myself for websites I design. Ultimately they fail to gain widespread traction since everyone has very different ideas on what of the various Web standards should be included at each version level. Someone else’s standard will likely not include that one feature you cannot go without so you simply do not follow it.
Thankfully for me it happened a while ago, after chess was conquered. One of the most amusing (and depressing) things in the past few years of the current “AI era” is people making the same claims and having the same discussions about “intelligence” and “creativity” from ten, twenty or thirty years ago as their field is finally coming under attack by AI; they are finally going through what the competitive board game communities (checkers, Othello, chess, shogi, go etc.) have already come to terms with. There was no single moment but a gradual process over decades as the incursion became greater and greater, forcing a recalibration as previously held positions became indefensible. In my own case it spurred me to educate myself in many areas of mathematics, philosophy and neuroscience in particular where I was ignorant and has undoubtedly shaped my understanding of “intelligence”.
When people started claiming LLMs could not produce ideas outside of what they encountered in their training data, I was reminded of an old Chess Life article from the 60s reporting on the first chess computer to play in a tournament at a local chess club. One of the club members remarked that he did not believe that the computer could play moves that were not “put in” the computer in advance. There is an overwhelming sense of “here we go again”.
> I have the original 8080 manual in front of me, and it's very clear they considered them computers to be applied to problems (the first chapter is literally "The Functions of a Computer").
They considered them computers to be applied to a narrow set of problems. That chapter only touches on general computer processor concepts, not applications specific to that processor.
From the first page of that manual - “Applications of the 8080 span from large, intelligent systems terminals to decompression computers for deep sea divers.”
Table 0-2. Microprocessor Applications from the introduction has the following applications listed: “Intelligent Terminals, Gaming Machines, Cash Registers, Accounting and Billing Machines, Telephone Switching Control, Numerically Controlled Machines, Process Control.”
Clearly the intention was embedded or “dedicated” use. It is obvious both from the design and capabilities of the processor as well as the fact that a market for general purpose computers with microprocessors did not exist. Even the “superminicomputer” market was in its infancy in those days. Not a single one of those listed applications is a stand-alone computer system, let alone one that could tackle the whole array of problems expected of computers then. That they call it a “Microcomputer System” is irrelevant; it does not mean what you are suggesting.
> From the first page of that manual - “Applications of the 8080 span from large, intelligent systems terminals to decompression computers for deep sea divers.”
> Table 0-2. Microprocessor Applications from the introduction has the following applications listed: “Intelligent Terminals, Gaming Machines, Cash Registers, Accounting and Billing Machines, Telephone Switching Control, Numerically Controlled Machines, Process Control.”
Thanks for making my point for me! Very much a general purpose computer then.
reply