I don't find this paper very compelling. Obviously it would be fraud if the code generated simply escaped the harness vs solving the actual problem. I agree that theoretically models could learn to do that, and it is important to highlight, but my sense is that those entities reporting the benchmark scores would have an obligation to observe this behavior and re-consider the metrics they report. It is a bit like saying it's possible to cheat in football because the balls are deflatable. It matters, and some have done it, but it doesn't mean widespread cheating is taking place. The paper takes the tone that there is already a lot of cheating happening which I do not think is the case.
I think there are a lot of good answers here, but it really comes down to the type of content being stored and access patterns.
A database is a data structure with (generally) many small items that need to be precisely updated, read and manipulated.
A lot of files don't necessarily have this access pattern (for instance rendering a large video file) ... a filesystem has a generic access pattern and is a lower level primitive than a database.
For this same reason you even have different kinds of database for different types of access patterns and data types (e.g Elasticsearch for full text search, MongoDB for JSON, Postgres for SQL)
Filesystem is generic and low-level, database is a higher order abstraction.
What's your source for this? There isn't really a lot of credible, publicly available information on what you're saying... just anecdotes. In the India v. Pakistan conflict recently a French produced Indian Rafale was downed via a Chinese long range air-to-air missle (PL-15) from a a Chinese produced J-10 jet. Even if they don't have the same hit rate, you can buy 10x for the same price.
No one wants to liberate Iran. Israel just wants to continue committing genocide and apartheid without any opposition. Iran arms Hezbollah and Hamas, the main forms of Palestinian resistance. The whole point of this operation is to decimate those groups so ethnic cleansing can continue without any resistance. Israel could care less about the Irani people.
You are very naive if you think the IRGC truly killed 10's of thousands of it's own people. Israel openly talks about Mossad organizing and supporting the coup, and good old Donny has admitted they have given weapons to organized resistance.
I estimate that many of the death numbers come from armed resistance being killed by the IRGC, not ordinary peaceful protestors. I also think armed resistance killed many Irani citizens. There is obviously fog of war here. The thousands of deaths were likely inflated and obfuscated.
Look at the coups we have backed in the middle east (including formerly in Iran which is what originally led to the Islamic revolution) -- and you will see a pattern. Both US and Israel provide material support to groups like ISIS or actors like Bin Laden. An Al-Qaeda fighter is literally the head of Syria now thanks to Israel.
I don't love Hamas, IRGC or Hezbollah, I don't like their ideology. But it is myopic to think they exist in a vaccum.
I did a similar project but using 3D fractals I found on shadertoy feeding into ViTs. They are extremely simple iterative functions that produce a ton of scene like complexity.
I have a pet theory that the visual cortex when developing is linked to some kind of mechanism such as this. You just need proteins that create some sort of resonating signal that feed into the neurons as they grow (obviously this is hand-wavy) but similar feedback loops guide nervous system growth in Zebra fish for example.
It's better than using randomly initialized weights. It's more of a theoretical exercise to explore biology. When an infant is born maybe the visual cortex already has some notion of edge detectors etc. through a system such as this one despite never having really opened it's eyes.
It's pretty simple... the word circle and what you can correlate to it via english language description has somewhat less to do with reality than a physical 3D model of a circle and what it would do in an environment. You can't just add more linguistic description via training data to change that. It doesn't really matter that you can keep back propagating because what you are back propagating over is fundamentally and qualitatively less rich.
I'm curious to understand, why would you build your website this way vs. say jQuery. I've never really understood the HTMX ecosystem. Is this just to avoid javascript and replace that with html pages, id's and attributes? It feels like the DOM is a very clear abstraction and scripting is a more powerful way to manipulate it. What do people like or prefer about this approach and paradigm?
The target audience is developers who are efficient at generating HTML server-side using an MVC framework, a template engine, whatever they're comfortable with. Instead of building a JSON API and a JavaScript layer to consume it, you just return HTML fragments from your existing routes.
µJS handles the AJAX call and swaps the fragment in the DOM. No JavaScript to write, no state to manage client-side. jQuery is more powerful and flexible, but that flexibility comes with complexity: you have to write the fetch call, handle the response, find the right DOM node, update it.
µJS does all of that declaratively via HTML attributes. It's not for every use case — highly interactive apps (think Google Maps or a rich text editor) still need proper JavaScript. But for the vast majority of web pages, server-rendered HTML fragments are simpler, faster to develop, and easier to maintain.
Nothing special happens. µJS doesn't change anything for direct URL access. The server renders the full page as usual. µJS only intercepts navigation once it's initialized on the page. This is actually one of the advantages of this approach over a true SPA: every URL is a fully server-rendered page, so direct access, bookmarks, and sharing links all work out of the box.
Let's take an example. Say we have a website with 3 pages:
- Homepage "website.com/"
- Products "website.com/products"
- About "website.com/about"
Your browser can load any of these pages directly, as usual. But when you are on the homepage (for example) and you click on the "About" link, µJS load the "/about" URL, and replace the current page's `<body>` tag with the fetched page's one.
I think the idea is that it's completely declarative, and the range of what you can do, being constrained to a set list of operations and targets, becomes clearer and easier to understand?
reply