Lzma. I did a simple test, same payload repeated with a gap. Lzma ruled it.

|gap |gzip |bz2 |lzma | |---------|----------|-----|--------| |0 |2.7% |18.9%|*0.9%*| |8 KB |2.4% |17.8%|0.9% | |*40 KB*|*94.4%* |17.7%|0.4% | |1 MB |*104.3%*|19.7%|*0.9%*|

The problem is, if we don’t confront it now, what will happen to this generation? We are cosy in our experienced bucket, but we should not let it happen, even if it pragmatically gives us more safety. I honestly think expertise should be less relevant with AI. The point of entry level was never just about them building expertise. It was also about them bringing fresh ideas, fresh culture -as annoying as it is sometimes - and challenge the establishment. We are moving towards a stagrowth of incremental “improvements”. Not 20 years. This year. When everything moves fast we cannot afford to have this Damocles sword hanging.

In my experience, rather than converging, you end up with a minced up concept. You have to know when to stop the loop. I filter the feedback too, and need to challenge some of the challenges as these models tend to be very conservative. I believe this is intentional, to control AI psychosis, which is indeed quite easy to get. My 2c. If you don’t have good control of what you’re working with you are either searching blind or end up with something basic.

Yes, someone can still blow up a pipe and they look the other way. On the other hand, you can also draw parallels to themselves becoming increasingly reliant on US vs UK in the past.

In a zoo humanity lays protected. These beings used to roam earth as the apex predators and destroyers of their ecosystem and their species too.

Curation is the new skill. The dismissal of a result on the basis of authorship is one of the reasons blind reviews are there. It sounds like we need more scientists. In al seriousness, this is a skill not just for science. Even at work, the amount of slop is rising exponentially and people are half-treating the symptom with its source, using AI to summarise. We will find our ways eventually.

It’s the other way around for me. OP has published everything in the open, so I can take him at face value. A PR media release on the other hand, I can accept with some reservations. The objective and non-conspiratorial reading I could offer is, this is most probably two independent discoveries of the same idea, maybe with different implementation. I still think the Jev team should look at prior art before going so hard on the marketing.

if you look at the paper on arxiv, you might see why academics would pass it by

another point of consideration might be if you are taking OP's local statements at face value over what the pre-Jev content actually contains

The reddit commentary around OP's gripe is cringe imo

https://www.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/comments/1wijo3e/i_liter...

if you want more cringe from OP, there's this gem

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49674396

I don’t mind the cringe. I have access to the information, so I can tell for myself. That’s my definition of face value, not necessarily that I agree, but I am given all the information to make a judgement.

We should not be wary of loud truths either. Unless we push the envelope we cannot trace back to the essence. Like, as an outsider in this discussion, I am now inclined not only to assess the finding, but also the definition of an organ. The title did good work. Its refutation too. Fencing every statement in unquestionable truth does not make the pursuit of truth stronger.

I’d add payment and maps and ability to login government sites or banks and connecting to your car… we are being very efficiently locked in.