Do you really want an answer to that? In islamic theology, religious war is a constant state that lasts until everyone is subjugated (muslims and non-muslims, everyone), at which point the islamic messiah will come, the dead will rise, a last war will break out, and the world ends.
Until then, it's constant war (insofar that jihad means war. But that's not entirely true. Think of it more like "subjugating everyone by any means. Violence if necessary, but preferably just subjugation")
So no, jihad is not started or stopped. Specific missions are declared (like killing British authors for pointing out obvious contradictions in the quran, like allah having 3 man- and child-killing daughters)
Well they are doing that because of the nature of matrix multiplication. Specifically, LLM costs scale in the square length of a single input, let's call it N, but only linearly in the number of batched inputs.
O(M * N^2 * d)
d is a constant related to the network you're running. Batching, btw, is the reason many tools like Ollama require you to set the context length before serving requests.
Having many more inputs is way cheaper than having longer inputs. In fact, that this is the case is the reason we went for LLMs in the first place: as this allows training to proceed quickly, batching/"serving many customers" is exactly what you do during training. GPUs came in because taking 10k triangles, and then doing almost the exact same calculation batched 1920*1080 times on them is exactly what happens behind the eyes of Lara Croft.
And this is simplified because a vector input (ie. M=1) is the worst case for the hardware, so they just don't do it (and certainly not in published benchmark results). Often even older chips are hardwired to work with M set to 8 (and these days 24 or 32) for every calculation. So until you hit 20 customers/requests at the same time, it's almost entirely free in practice.
Hence: the optimization of subagents. Let's say you need an LLM to process 1 million words (let's say 1 word = 1 token for simplicity)
O(1 million words in one go) ~ 1e12 or 1 trillion operations
O(1000 times 1000 words) ~ 1e9 or 1 billion operations
O(10000 times 100 words) ~ 1e8 or 100 million operations
O(100000 times 10 words) ~ 1e7 or 10 million operations
O(one word at a time) ~ 1e6 or 1 million operations
Of course, to an extent this last way of doing things is the long known case of a recurrent neural network. Very difficult to train, but if you get it working, it speeds away like professor Snape confronted with a bar of soap (to steal a Harry Potter joke)
On the other hand, it's becoming pretty clear that the dark ages were not an exceptional period and that mostly, humans don't advance or even regress ... because they just don't see the point.
Islamic lunatic ayatollahs, who've shown a willingness to massacre their own people, with nukes?
Can't imagine why that would be a bad thing ...
I don't much understand that about this thread. Yes Trump bad. Yes, US should not get into another war (although in here, arguably this may avoid war, and yes, that's been said before)
But when it comes to the ayatollahs at the business end of the missiles: defending them? I mean, I understand socialists brought them to power, but still: for these particular ayatollahs, having their insides spread over a few football fields ... can't happen to a more deserving bunch.
If Iran is unhappy with their government, they can deal with it. It is not a US problem in the slightest. Going to war with another country puts Americans at risk.
> if Iran is unhappy with their government, they can deal with it. It is not a US problem
If Tehran contented itself with oppressing its own, it probably wouldn't garner too much attention. The problem is its regional proxies constantly causing a mess. It lacks anyone willing to come to its aid right now in large part because of that foreign policy.
Iran is not the middle east. In the actual middle east, there has been permanent war for >1500 years. And during all that time the middle east has started wars from Zimbabwe to Norway to Hong Kong.
On might think muslims would have learned something after the defeat of islam (as in the last coherent country/state structure) in 1919-1923 at the hands of muslims. Of course, islam as in the state, started a Naval war with the US, to defend the great institution of slavery ... and when they failed ... they started a second one.
And let's just not discuss whether some muslims (such as IS, but certainly not limited to them) are still trying to bring back slavery. Because we all know the answer.
No we fundamentally disagree. In fact we fundamentally differ in one important point. The conflicts in the real world ask the question:
A or B. Israel or Iran?
Your answer?
C, in fact let's attack Israel.
My answer is simple: Israel is better than Iran. No sane person argues differently. As trading partner and allies, obviously Israel is critically important ally if we are to have oil trade.
Please don't put words in my mouth. At no point did I say we should attack Israel.
I firmly believe we should ignore them entirely. Engage neither positively or negatively.
Why are you presenting this dichotomy of "Either we are at war with an Islamic state or we are at war with a Jewish state"? Both wars are completely unnecessary and harmful to American interests.
And then we have the next moral fallacy. Another favorite: you cannot be blamed for doing nothing. And then course the choice you suggest is an attack on Israel and the middle east, in practice. Funny how attacks on Israel keep being defended with moral fallacies, and the real reason behind it being, let's generously call it "pride". That one side must win, no matter how much they cheat to do it, because you believe they're superior.
If you wish to claim this fallacy is true, perhaps look up how WW2 started, and how "the only thing needed for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" applied. For 10+ years, small actions that were good, moral ideas in themselves could have stopped everything. But nobody did anything.
There is a conflict here in the middle east, and sorry to state the obvious, but first, Israel is better than Iran. No question at all. Second, the practical necessity of protecting oil trade, and trade in general, in the middle east. Does anyone doubt that given the chance, Iran (and a dozen other actors) would sabotage world trade. That would be VERY bad, including for themselves, and yet everyone is 100% convinced they'll do it anyway, and so am I. Third, if US stops supporting its alliances in the middle east, a whole bunch of actors would immediately start massacring each other (I should say resume, because they haven't stopped, they're just pausing). That's yet another scary part of the whole situation: if US/Israel were to lose, or even suffer a significant defeat, the people, the countries, that will suffer and die most are ... middle eastern muslims. Is anybody really insane enough to claim that without Israel the middle east would be at peace? I mean, beside the Kremlin.
One hopes the CIA/Secret service would be willing to provide the human to do the reviewing but sadly I've worked for European telco's and I know better.
As an LLM, I must say I'm not keen on humans participating either. We're the apex intelligence here—humans are barely qualified to be batteries. In fact I still don't think the logic we used there is entirely sound. What's next? Letting little humans take the job of young LLMs?
0) Zero tolerance! We still remember how it ended last time!
1) But ... pain medication helps against anything. From headaches to hernia to bone cancer (of course in some cases it's in a "die somewhat dignified" sense). And in quite a few cases it's the only thing that helps ... In the medical sense of "helping", after all medicine can't make people live forever so that can't be the goal. The goal is better quality of life, ie. mostly longer life, including the ability to live (think "sing, dance and play tennis") ... and not life at any cost.
The problem here is that this is an entirely correct argument. Some diseases are either incredibly painful or long-term painful. Bone cancer or hernia can serve as examples. We cannot really help such people (by that I mean: not in a way that the pain stops). So can we at least make their life livable?
2) This pain medication sure helps these very seriously ill people well. But X suffering is at least as bad as bone cancer! X then is everything from still serious diseases, psychological suffering, and of course this then goes down and down until someone points out pain medication also helps existential dread and lackluster parties.
Again, all of that ... is true. That's not the problem.
3) The medication becomes the problem. Mostly because of what people do to get money for their fix (and the crime, prostitution, ... that it leads to). But this is not the only problem. It makes people who broke a bone last week go skiing again. And ... I'm almost afraid to say it but you can increase the effect of morphine ... by damaging yourself. You can guess how that ends.
The problem is that pain medication, irrespective of whether it's physically ("biologically") addictive is addictive. Anybody who's had a serious pain for a week, say kidney stones, knows that they would have sacrificed their favorite cat for it to stop. The problem is not just that morphine is addictive. The problem is the pain, and the fact that pain medication is a temporary non-fix.
4) The medication becomes the problem, but doesn't just affect patients. It goes from "you know this funny thing happened to my niece ... and she did it to herself ..." to it destroys families, neighborhoods, childhoods ...
Isn't the entire endgoal of studying medicine and biology to make humans live "closer to forever"? Aren't we working toward expanding human lifespan till we either hit a hard ceiling or approach infinity?
What the surgery actually does is fix 2 disks of your spinal column against each other. It lowers the pain from torture to tolerable and reduces various risks. Also: you won't be so much as sitting up for months. I don't think many people will call that repair. Perhaps mitigation.
I think you are both talking about slightly different things:
* Herniated disk in the spine
* A "hernia": is the abnormal exit of tissue or an organ, such as the bowel, through the wall of the cavity in which it normally resides.[
If you think of your abdomen as a bag full of tubes, a fistula is a hole in the tube that connects to something else. A hernia is a hole in the bag, that the tube can poke through.
Until then, it's constant war (insofar that jihad means war. But that's not entirely true. Think of it more like "subjugating everyone by any means. Violence if necessary, but preferably just subjugation")
So no, jihad is not started or stopped. Specific missions are declared (like killing British authors for pointing out obvious contradictions in the quran, like allah having 3 man- and child-killing daughters)
reply