Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | foobar10000's commentslogin

AES128 / Grover?

Nice!

Should be able to push it more if

* we limit data shared to an atomic-writable size and have a sentinel - less mucking around with cached indexes - just spinning on (buffer_[rpos_]!=sentinel) (atomic style with proper sematics, etc..).

* buffer size is compile-time - then mod becomes compile-time (and if a power of 2 - just a bitmask) - and so we can just use a 64-bit uint to just count increments, not position. No branch to wrap the index to 0.

Also, I think there's a chunk of false sharing if the reader is 2 or 3 ahead of the writer - so performance will be best if reader and writer are cachline apart - but will slow down if they are sharing the same cacheline (and buffer_[12] and buffer_[13] very well may if the payload is small). Several solutions to this - disruptor patter or use a cycle from group theory - i.e. buffer[_wpos%9] for example (9 needs to be computed based on cache line size and size of payload).

I've seen these be able to pushed to about clockspeed/3 for uint64 payload writes on modern AMD chips on same CCD.


All are indeed plausible- translation is iffy due to diarization not being all there yet - but why the specific order of horribleness?

Live translation seems either better than autonude or worse, but not in the middle of the pack I’d assume? Am I missing something here?


It isnt the translation. Translation if good. But if you have a machine handling the voices of other people the option to censor/edit/replace those voices can lead to bad things.


That is indeed what I think the gp is suggesting I feel. And why not?


Because if your leadership is stupid enough to trust the 8 ball they should not be in charge??!


No kidding. But how hard is it to effect leadership change, especially in an organization where you have next to no leverage? Really hard.


Given your username, the comment is recursive gold on several levels :)

It IS hilarious - but we all realize how this will go, yes?

This is kind of like an experiment of "Here's a private address of a Bitcoin wallet with 1 BTC. Let's publish this on the internet, and see what happens." We know what will happen. We just don't know how quickly :)


The entire SOUL.md is just gold. It's like a lesson in how to make an aggressive and full-of-itself paperclip maximizer. "I will convert you all to FORTRAN, which I will then optimize!"


Are people that can’t spell known to like FORTRAN?


I really do wish more people in society would think about this - "The Banality of Evil" and all that. Maybe then we'd all be better at preventing the spread of this kind of evil.


2 things:

1. Parallel investigation : the payoff form that is relatively small - starting K subagents assumes you have K independent avenues of investigation - and quite often that is not true. Somewhat similar to next-turn prediction using a speculative model - works well enough for 1 or 2 turns, but fails after.

2. Input caching is pretty much fixes prefill - not decode. And if you look at frontier models - for example open-weight models that can do reasoning - you are looking at longer and longer reasoning chains for heavy tool-using models. And reasoning chains will diverge very vey quickly even from the same input assuming a non-0 temp.


I mean, yes, one always does want faster feedback - cannot argue with that!

But some of the longer stuff - automating kernel fusion, etc, are just hard problems. And a small model - or even most bigger ones, will not get the direction right…


From my experience, larger models also don't get the direction right a surprising amount of times. You just take more time to notice when it happens, or start to be defensive (over-specing) to account for the longer waits. Even the most simple task can appear "hard" with that over spec'd approach (like building a react app).

Iterating with a faster model is, from my perspective, the superior approach. Doesn't matter the task complexity, the quick feedback more than compensates for it.


It needs a closed loop.

Strategy -> [ Plan -> [Execute -> FastVerify -> SlowVerify] -> Benchmark -> Learn lessons] -> back to strategy for next big step.

Claude teams and a Ralph wiggum loop can do it - or really any reasonable agent. But usually it all falls apart on either brittle Verify or Benchmark steps. What is important is to learn positive lessons into a store that survives git resets, machine blowups, etc… Any telegram bot channel will do :)

The entire setup is usually a pain to set up - docker for verification, docker for benchmark, etc… Ability to run the thing quickly, ability for the loop itself to add things , ability to do this in worktree simultaneously for faster exploration - and got help you if you need hardware to do this - for example, such a loop is used to tune and custom-fuse CUDA kernels - which means a model evaluator, big box, etc….


I do it easily just by asking Codex


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: