与「Other_way」相关的搜索结果

Hi, Tomorrow we are re-opening the Pro $200 subscriptions to new subscribers, but together with it we are also changing how we calculate the usage for it. In effect, if you do the math, it will net out at half the dollar in API spend compared to the old Pro $200 plan. Now that it's said, let me explain why this is happening and why you will still get more work done than if you were on the Pro $200 subscription one month ago. (a) We didn't want to compromise in other ways and are committing to not reintroducing the 5h limit, so that you can fully use the weekly usage when you want. (b) On the subscription, we guarantee that over time you always get more work done and with an increasing level of quality. This means that you will continue to get more value per dollar spent as a result of models getting more efficient and us passing down the improvements in the form of API price reductions. (c) We don't want to put an incentive on ourselves to artificially inflate the API list prices to make it look like you are getting a lot (and workaround it through discounts, etc). Instead we want to continue to both rapidly reduce prices and increase capabilities of models on the API. This week we introduced GPT-6 Sol and GPT-6 Luna at 50% of their previous price. Over time, we see prices go low enough that it makes sense for most to buy usage as needed without there being a significant gap between what you get in a subscription and what you get in the API for a dollar spent. (d) Tomorrow, we are adding more things to the subscription that won't draw on the usage, I won't reveal what that is yet. I wanted to be transparent before all the big announcements tomorrow. Lots of new exciting things are coming to the subscriptions that will make it super compelling, but I wanted to make sure to share this change ahead of time so you can all understand it before we shower you with good news. Codexingly, Tibo

Most #cyclist# are squeezing training in around life, not the other way around. It's about stealing snippets when you can. Even just 30mins a day adds up over a few months. #persistent# training pays off 💪

dear any OF girl with management: u are a lazy piece of shit. theres no other way around it. u r simply a greedy money hungry whore. there is no excuse. u are simply a bad person. just admit it and i wont come 4 u

The World is Changing: AI For Creativity By Jeffrey Katzenberg A few months ago, I sat in my office in Silicon Valley and watched as a tech founder showed me something extraordinary. On the screen was a fully realized, beautifully lit, well-composed animated scene. It was stunning and it made me feel exactly what I felt in 1986 watching Luxo Jr. That was the first time I watched a computer-animated 3D character take a breath and seem, against all reason, to have life. It left me in awe. Later that day, I received a text from an artist I've known for thirty years, 350 miles to the south, in the city where I spent most of my career. After seeing a similar video, she texted: "Is this the end of us?" My answer was, "Certainly not.” I have spent the better part of the last decade in Silicon Valley, but the heart of my career has been in Hollywood. Being deeply connected to both worlds means I have deep loyalties to each and a responsibility to speak honestly to both. In 2023, I said that these new AI tools would cut the time and cost of producing world-class animation by as much as ninety percent within three years. Some colleagues were alarmed, many were furious. There is growing fear and resistance surrounding AI within the creative community. I deeply understand it, because I've spent countless hours walking through animation studios watching gifted artists bent over their desks, rebuilding a single second of film for the tenth time because the ninth version wasn't quite right. I've sat in screening rooms where four years of people's labor played out in minutes, and I knew the name of every person that had spent countless hours bringing those images to life. The creative process is a calling, there's really no other way to describe it. From the outside some see resistance. From the inside, it is love. People do not fight this hard for things they don't care about. The pushback coming out of Hollywood represents the collective effort of people who are deeply passionate about their craft. Is History Repeating Itself? The history here is more complicated than either side may realize. In 1906, the most famous composer in America, John Philip Sousa, published an essay titled “The Menace of Mechanical Music." He warned that the phonograph would become "a substitute for human skill, intelligence and soul." Sousa's fight was not really about the machine, it was about money. The machines were playing his compositions, and the men who built them weren't paying him a cent. His campaign helped create the Copyright Act of 1909. He did not stop the technology. He changed the terms under which it could use his work. A hundred years ago, sound came to the movies. We remember it now as a miracle, and it was. What we forget is who paid for it. Before sound, tens of thousands of musicians made their living in the orchestra pits of movie houses, scoring every film live, every night, in towns all over the world. When the soundtrack arrived, the work of one composer and one orchestra was recorded for a film that went into thousands of theaters. The union fought back with everything it had, taking out newspaper ads across the country warning against the menace of "canned music," one of them showing a mechanical man tearing the strings out of a harp while an angel wept. They were not fools, and they were not Luddites. They were right. Those pit jobs did not come back. And yet (this is the part we have to be brave enough to admit), sound gave us the movie musical, the modern score, sfx, sound design, audio engineering, and an art form vastly larger than the one it disrupted. And it helped keep Hollywood in the forefront of world entertainment for the rest of the century and into the next. The loss was real. And yet the art form expanded. This is a story that has been told over and over again. To resist technology is to risk irrelevance. Just look at Kodak or Blockbuster. To embrace technology is to open doors of new possibility. Just consider Apple and Netflix. What I Learned From Walt Disney In the mid-1980s, I was tapped to lead Disney's animation division at a moment when the studio was at an inflection point. Animation wasn't just another business unit. It was the soul of the company, a medium revered because of Walt's genius and his passion. But the production system was cumbersome and unforgiving. A single movie was 125,000 individual hand-drawn and painted cels, photographed one frame at a time. Every revision carried a cost measured in months. These degrees of difficulty shaped the kinds of stories we could tell. We found our way forward in an unexpected place: Walt himself. The Disney archives held astonishing recordings of Walt explaining his creative process. His own writings. His notes and storyboards. Work product captured at every stage of his process. This was truly a gift. Listening, reading, sitting with the work itself, we heard him talk about character, about emotion, about how an audience feels when a character truly comes alive. He talked about making bold choices and refining a scene until it genuinely moved people. We didn't hear a word about pencils or paintbrushes. In fact, Walt was famous for being a technologist, forever hunting for state-of-the-art tools, often inventing them himself to achieve the images he saw in his head. But he never defined animation by the tools. He defined it by whether the audience believed the character. His principles were timeless. The tools were not. That realization changed everything. We co-developed the Computer Animation Production System (CAPS) with a young Northern California company called Pixar, replacing hand-painted cels with CGI. In The Little Mermaid, the final scene shimmered with a dimensionality and light that the old process simply couldn't achieve. In Beauty and the Beast, the ballroom sequence moved with a cinematic sweep that placed the audience inside the emotion of the moment. In Aladdin, the Cave of Wonders felt vast and alive, and the Magic Carpet became an intricate, compelling character all its own. In The Lion King, the stampede carried a scale and intensity that raised the emotional stakes beyond anything we'd done before. Technology didn't diminish the craft, it expanded the canvas. It gave artists more room to create. A decade later, the canvas expanded again. When Disney released Pixar's Toy Story, it wasn't simply a technical milestone. It was proof that a fully computer-animated film could carry real emotional weight, that it could make audiences laugh, cry, and believe. At DreamWorks, we made the difficult decision to sunset hand-drawn animation and become a fully computer-animated studio. It was the right thing to do, but it was not without pain. It cost talented people their place in an industry where they had worked their whole lives. Some made the leap to the new tools and did the finest work of their careers. Some never did. Tools are never the point. The instruments change with every generation. What endures is taste and imagination. The magical ability to make an audience feel. One of the greatest storytellers of our generation, George Lucas, succinctly captured the eternal essence of this issue: “It’s not the how, it’s the why.” A Distinction With a Difference I asked one of the leading AI models a question that has been challenging me for months. What is the difference between reasoning and creating? Its answer changed how I think about almost everything happening in this industry. It said . . . Reasoning and creating are two distinct cognitive modes, though they also work together. Reasoning is fundamentally evaluative and analytical. It operates on what already exists: facts, premises, evidence. It moves toward a conclusion that was in a sense already implied by the input. Reasoning is constrained by logic and truth. Its goal is to arrive somewhere correct, not to invent somewhere new. Creating is fundamentally generative. It produces something that didn't exist before. And crucially, there's no single right answer waiting to be found. A blank page has infinite valid responses. Creation involves choices that can't be fully justified by logic alone. Taste, intuition and vision fill the gap where deduction runs out. Reasoning is what Silicon Valley has been perfecting. Creating is what Hollywood has been practicing for more than a century. AI today operates almost entirely on the reasoning side of the line. It can deduce, evaluate, optimize, and pattern-match brilliantly. And while it can create, there is a real distinction to being creative. What it doesn’t yet have is those things that make us human: empathy, devotion, serendipity, the kind of creativity that comes from a person trying to say something only they could say. When the bot generates a piece of art, it is not trying to communicate anything. It is statistics, not soul; it is emulating things that have been done. By contrast, human creativity isn’t about repeating patterns of zeros and ones; it is about doing something new. One day, AI may close this gap. Three years ago, the leaders building AI would have called what they are achieving today, improbable, if not impossible. Impossible is no longer improbable. Today, the line between reasoning and creating is real. Even the leading technologists acknowledge we are not there yet. There is no scientific path to crossing this divide that anyone in the field can articulate today. Understanding that gap is where we will find common ground. A Path Forward In 2016, I closed one chapter in Hollywood with the sale of DreamWorks and opened another in Northern California, co-founding WndrCo. We’ve backed more than 50 founders building the next generation of technology and watched how breakthroughs in Silicon Valley emerge, first as experiments, then as platforms, and finally as infrastructure that reshapes entire industries. It's worth remembering that the last great revolution in animation also came from the north. Pixar was a Northern California company, forged not in the conventions of the Hollywood studio system, but in the technological breakthroughs of Silicon Valley. I've spent years on both sides of this bridge. For sure, I don’t have all the answers (take Quibi, for one!). But, from my past and present vantage points of my long career, here is what I see . . . Brilliant people in Northern California building this technology have made something extraordinary. They have earned the right for the rest of us to be, if not believers, at least optimistic that what comes next will be remarkable. But they have not made an artist. The tools are powerful, but they are not what makes a story matter. That knowledge lives 350 miles to the south, inside people whose life's work has informed the very models you are building. The right path forward includes them by design, with credit, with consent, and with compensation. Build this with the storytellers. Not on top of them. Taste is not something that can be synthesized, it is uniquely human. At the same time, Hollywood needs to accept that AI is not going away. The energy they are spending trying to make it disappear is energy they are not spending deciding the terms on which it will exist. And the terms are everything. The north needs something from it that they cannot build and cannot buy: creativity. The kind that takes a blank page and conjures a single right answer where there was none and has held audiences for a century. Without it, the most powerful reasoning engine ever invented will still be missing the only thing that makes a story worth telling. The artists who learn to wield these new instruments will do things the engineers never dreamed of. They always have. Edison invented the motion picture but made terrible movies. It took Chaplin, Lloyd, Keaton and so many others to make movies emotional. Now, the canvas is about to expand yet again. We should decide now that we intend to paint on it. There are so many valuable lessons in history. This has happened many times before, and it was never settled by the technology. It was settled by the terms. Sousa did not stop the phonograph; he helped write the law that made sure composers got paid. And two years ago, when the writers and the actors walked out, they were fighting for the very things Sousa was fighting for in 1906. Consent, compensation, the basic recognition that human creative work has a price that must be paid. The terms of that fight are still being negotiated, but the principle is older than any of us. The tools-versus-no-tools argument is a trap. First, we must all agree that there should be terms. Then we can have the crucial debate about what fairness requires. What I Learned From Steve Jobs Years ago, Steve Jobs said, "It's in Apple's DNA that technology alone is not enough. It's technology married with the liberal arts, married with the humanities, that yields us the result that makes our hearts sing." He was describing a device. But he could just as easily have been describing this tale of two cities. What I See Coming Soon As the barriers and the costs come down, more films will get made, not fewer. Studios will get to take more risks. There will be more seats at the table, and very soon entirely new forms of storytelling. In the 1980s, animation was dismissed as a niche corner of the business. Today it is one of the most beloved and profitable forms of storytelling in the world. In live action, filmmakers like Steven Spielberg, James Cameron and Peter Jackson embraced new visual tools not as shortcuts, but as instruments, and expanded cinema in the process. Every time storytelling has met a genuine technological shift, from synchronized sound to color to computer animation, it has redefined the boundaries of the medium and grown larger in the process. Assuredly, I don’t have all the answers, but I am confident that the creative opportunities will expand yet again. How we come through this is a choice. The north has the new tools. The south has the creative soul. The best future will draw on the best of both worlds.

1/ gm. gm. Name is Hsin-Ju. I have a dark, kinda tragic personal announcement. I've decided I'd rather take $0 than accept a settlement that requires me to stay silent about what happened to me. I have since fired my lawyers at @sanfordheisler & will be releasing all the evidence from my time @hack_vc on Wed 8/26. INTRO: I've been in crypto for 9 years. Most recently I was a partner & head of platform @hack_vc which is a $600-700M crypto VC firm. Many of you may know me from my time as Head of Growth at @StellarOrg in 2017 (worked w/ the Mt. Gox founder), @Solana in 2018 (joined under ~10 ppl, but quit before my cliff), & @Fhenix in 2024. Or have attended one of my @DystopiaLabs ETH events (2019-now). Last year, I was forced to work through a serious medical emergency while at @Hack_VC due to threats by @alpackaP @dbulaevsky, saying that they would blacklist me from the space if I quit before finishing the hacksummit conference & side events that I was helping with during @kbwofficial. I was working 13-14hr days, 6 days a week, sleeping 0-4 hrs a night, and had documented Graves' disease, hyperthyroidism, and severe insomnia. I repeatedly asked to quit. Hack VC refused. This + other threats and intimidation went on for almost a month. The conditions got so bad I attempted suicide. The fucked up part is that, even after the suicide attempt, I told everyone at Hack VC (in writing) that I had no plans to sue. I was scared & extremely sick. I just wanted to leave. I told them that as long as there was no retaliation or badmouthing - I had no plans to sue. @Hack_VC chose to retaliate. After just 1 month after my near suicide, Hack VC mishandled my COBRA health insurance, refused to fix things, kept shooing me to customer support (when it's legally Hack VC's responsibility to fix this), and my insurance had issues and was not fixed for almost 4 MONTHS. Hack VC did not fix everything until I hired lawyers and had them force Hack VC to adhere to the law & fix my COBRA insurance issues. The sheer cruelty of an employer harming someone's health insurance almost immediately after they nearly committed suicide is extremely fucked up. And, even during the legal engagement, Hack VC continued to lie & attempt to harm me through their lawyers and other employees/partners (multi-million dollar carry & clawbacks can make even the nicest ppl willing to turn the other way or lie). @0xRodney @IsTheBaron @roshunpatel @Alex__Botte. Now. Almost an entire year of engagement & my near suicide anniversary coming up, our lawyers (mine & Hack VC's) have reached the point of preparing for private mediation and settlement. And...I realized that I just can't do it. I don't want money in exchange for silence. I'd rather speak. I fired my lawyers yesterday. In case it needs to be said, I did a good job at Hack VC. I was only there full time for 7 months; been part-time since 2021. I got a $50k raise to $300k, $30k bonus, and promises of additional carry that would have been implemented about a week or so after my last day. I was also offered admission into the GP entity (but not sure if admission was actually completed bc it was during my medical emergency). This + my resume, should show that me suing is not a money grab; I was genuinely harmed. I'm aware that I'm just one person (who is not rich) facing a $600-700M VC institution. I've been told by @alpackaP that he's known most of the managing partners at most VC firms for almost a decade and he could absolutely blacklist me. I'm also painful aware that the conclusion of this will probably be extremely poor for me or death - but I've accepted it. Sharing with other web2 & web3 VCs: @paulg @ycombinator @500STARTUPS @a16zcrypto @PanteraCapital @dragonflyvc @RaceCapital @hosseeb @haunventures @hiFramework @ElectricCapital @blockchaincap @Delphi_Digital @variantfund @1kxnetwork @archetypevc @shimacapital @robotventures, etc. TLDR; I’m done with continued threats, pressure, and intimidation. I'm not going to take a payout and allow Alex or Hack VC to walk away from harming me. As mentioned, I'll be dropping the evidence from my case on Wed 8/26 (or before) -- privacy be damned. Support here (or DM) please: ETH: 0x68c10776C5c05Cbf5B4C2318bE02D61B9f06B875 SOL: B7S8TPcWWJXTsmgG8ShoTmy8sNPuJ3Dbmt7z5gLFAveq

This is the real reason the Left is uniting with Islam, and how it’s going to end “I keep wondering why the left is so obsessed with defending an ideology that would be the first to execute them. Democrats have spent decades fighting for things like women's rights, and yet they defend countries where women are banned from school, where honor killings happen, and where wives have no protection, or no legal protection from abuse. They wave pride flags at every parade, and yet they defend countries where homosexuality is punishable by death. So what then exactly does the progressive left and these Islamists have in common? Because on the surface, they agree on literally nothing, except for one thing: They share the same enemy, and that enemy is the West And the thing is, neither of them can build what they want while the West still stands. So they're kind of working together to tear it down first, and figure the rest out later. The Marxist thinks he's using the Islamists to do the heavy lifting. The useful idiots vote them in, platform them, defend them, and launder every atrocity as resistance. And what awaits them when the job is done is something history has already shown us. Iran, 1977, the Marxists and Islamists united to overthrow the Shah. The moment they won, the Islamists executed every single leftist who helped bring them to power: jailed, tortured, or gone. The left handed them the revolution and got a bullet for it” “But they can't do that here because nobody's starving. The thing about socialist revolutions is they need desperation, whether it's famine or disease, and that's not America, so they need a different strategy. Because here's what the left has been doing in the meantime. They have become a laundering service, and what I mean by that is the West won't naturally accept an ideology that is openly intolerant. We're a tolerant society, which is our weakness and our strength. So every time there's a terrorist attack, it becomes an act of resistance. Every massacre becomes a natural reaction to imperialism or colonialism or whatever. They don't defend the ideology directly, they just make the atrocity make sense to you over and over until your moral framework shifts without you noticing. KGB defector, Yuri Bezmenov, called this demoralization. You don't need to win a revolution if you can get people to abandon their own values first. It starts with murdering civilians is wrong. Then it becomes, were those civilians really innocent given the history of colonialism? You don't need an Islamic conquest by force when you can walk it in through the front door of compassion…. And the left will be the last to realize what they helped build right up until they're the first against the wall.” There is literally no other way this ends except exactly how this describes. It’s the same story that’s played out again and again and again And the crazy thing is, the Islamists don’t even hide this is what they’re doing, they openly say they’re using the Left until enough of them get into power We have to stop it because if we let liberals bring America down and face an Islamic Revolution, they bring us down with them

bStocks Never Sleep. Neither Do Memes. One of the most interesting shifts I’ve been watching on BNB Chain lately is how RWA and Meme are starting to move closer together. And I don’t think this is just a story about one particular meme. I think it’s a story about the kind of culture BNB Chain could build around real-world assets. 1/ Real-world equities are rapidly moving onchain. Through bStocks: NVIDIA → NVDAB Tesla → TSLAB SpaceX → SPCXB Companies that already exist in the real world can now be represented as onchain assets on BNB Chain. When people used to talk about RWAs, the conversation was often centered around things like real estate or government bonds. Now, some of the world’s most recognizable companies are becoming part of the onchain economy. I think that shift matters. 2/ But this raises an interesting question: If real-world assets move onchain, what happens to the culture around those assets? Tesla has Elon Musk and Optimus. SpaceX has Mars. NVIDIA has Jensen Huang and his black leather jacket. A company is more than just a ticker. Every major company has its own: people, products, mascots, history, symbols, and culture. 3/ That’s why I look at RWA + Meme a little differently. RWA brings assets onchain. Memes bring culture onchain. If bStocks brings real-world companies and financial assets onto BNB Chain, memes can bring the culture, symbols, and collective identity surrounding those companies onchain as well. And when both begin to exist on the same chain, I think that could create a very interesting culture unique to BNB Chain. 4/ Take NVIDIA as an example. Through bStocks, we already have: NVDA → NVDAB And in the real world, the person most closely associated with NVIDIA is Jensen Huang. So what is the one object most associated with Jensen? For me, the answer is obvious: the black leather jacket. 5/ And this isn’t a narrative that was manufactured just to create a meme. Jensen has been wearing black leather jackets at major presentations and public appearances for nearly two decades. It started as something his family helped choose. But over time, repetition created an identity: Jacket → Jensen Huang → NVIDIA → AI The meme came after the history. Not the other way around. 6/ And now, that symbol even has a real-world price. A Tom Ford leather jacket personally worn and signed by Jensen Huang went to auction. Estimated value: $40,000–$60,000 Final sale price: $960,000. Nearly $1 million. People weren’t paying $960K simply for leather. They were paying for the: history, identity, and provenance attached to it. To me, that’s a fascinating example of how a cultural symbol can acquire real-world value. 7/ And this is where things get interesting on BNB Chain. Take NVIDIA: Financial layer NVDA ↓ NVDAB ↓ bStocks Cultural layer Jensen Huang ↓ Black Leather Jacket ↓ JACKET ↓ Meme One represents the company’s financial value. The other represents the cultural value surrounding it. Different markets. Different forms of value. But both originate from the same real-world company. 8/ This is also why I find BNB Chain-native meme infrastructure like FLAP interesting. If bStocks creates a new playground for real-world financial assets, meme infrastructure can become a playground for the culture surrounding those assets. And this idea doesn’t stop with NVIDIA. Tesla. SpaceX. Microsoft. Apple. Alibaba. Every major company already has years — sometimes decades — of culture, characters, products, symbols, and stories surrounding it. As the RWA universe expands, the potential cultural layer around those assets expands with it. 9/ So I don’t really think of this as simply: “putting memes on top of RWAs.” I think it’s closer to the convergence of: Financial Markets + Internet Culture Wall Street has tickers. The internet has memes. And now, on BNB Chain, both can exist inside the same block. 10/ That’s why I continue to find RWA + Meme on BSC so interesting. bStocks can bring new assets onchain. But assets alone don’t create culture. Culture begins when people start interacting with those assets. They trade them. Talk about them. Create stories around them. Turn them into images. And eventually, turn them into memes. That’s when an ecosystem begins to develop its own onchain culture. 11/ And that’s how I see JACKET. Not as the entire thesis, but as one example of what this model could look like. Because JACKET itself isn’t the most important part. What matters is whether this same structure can repeat across hundreds of real-world companies and assets. Real-world companies. Real-world assets. Real-world culture. All meeting on the same chain. bStocks brings the market onchain. Memes bring the culture onchain. Maybe that’s what RWA + Meme was supposed to look like. #BNBChain# @cz_binance @heyibinance

Okay, the @VulcanBench results for Qwen3.8-Max are in, and it is not what I expected. First, for anyone new to VulcanBench, here's a quick TL;DR on the eval suite: 23 frontier-hard software engineering tasks taken from real merged OSS PRs, run in a Docker sandbox, 3 runs per task across all three of its effort levels. No puzzles, no random abstract stuff, all real things engineering teams would do with these models. It looks like Qwen3.8-Max has a major overthinking problem, it uses a LOT of tokens and is very slow, period, no other way to see it. My cost to run this benchmark was $126.25, to run the exact same eval suite with DeepSeek V4-Flash was only $13.60. This makes Qwen3.8-Max an insanely expensive model. The tasks Qwen genuinely can't solve fail at every effort level, extra reasoning didn't help. The regression is almost all in work it already handles: six tasks that low solves every single time account for 83% of the 26-point drop, three of them collapsing to zero. It's not losing the hard problems. It's losing the ones it already knows how to do. Since Qwen3.8-Max hit a lot of wall clock budget caps, I thought I'd share more about this. - VulcanBench caps both steps (50–200) and wall clock (5–60 min), each scaled by repo size. - This is aligned with how comparable harnesses bound agents, DeepSWE caps rollouts at 100 environment steps, sitting right inside my step range; Terminal-Bench enforces a per-task wall clock; SWE-bench Verified scaffolds typically allow 20–60 min per instance with 250–350 step limits. - Every model on my chart gets the identical budget, and Qwen is the slowest model I've tested at 20–25 min/task. Soooo... Alibaba positions Qwen3.8-Max as trailing only Claude Fable 5. But on the kind of real coding work engineering teams would actually throw at it, under a fixed budget, its best setting lands mid-pack and its default lands last, so common. If you want to optimize for accuracy, Grok 4.5 is the move. If you want accuracy per dollar, DeepSeek V4-Flash is hard to beat, heck it's 10× cheaper than Qwen and you get higher accuracy. Qwen just isn't in the game at this point, this is not a model I could see engineering teams using for daily coding work.

Geoffrey Hinton says a big language model runs on about 1% of your brain's connections and still ends up knowing more than you: "So in your brain, you have a hundred trillion connections, roughly speaking. Okay. That's a lot. And you only live for about two billion seconds. That's not much." "If you compare how many seconds you live for, with how many connections you've got, you have a whole lot more connections than experiences." "Now with these neural nets, it's sort of the other way round. They only have of the order of a trillion connections. So like 1% of your connections, even in a big language model, many of them fewer, but they get thousands of times more experience than you." "So the big language models are solving the problem with not many connections, only a trillion. How do I make use of a huge amount of experience?" "And back propagation is really, really good at packing huge amounts of knowledge into not many connections." "But that's not the problem we're solving. We've got huge numbers of connections, not much experience. We need to sort of extract the most we can from each experience." Two to three billion seconds is the whole budget. Everything you know, you learned inside it. So evolution built you to squeeze a lot out of very little. Hinton's point is that a language model has the opposite problem and the opposite fix, and backprop turned out to be extremely good at that fix. Worth noticing what this predicts about failure. A system running on 1% of your wiring and thousands of times your experience is not going to fail the way you do. You fail from having seen too few examples. It fails from compressing too many into too little, and the compression is where the errors get made. That is a strange thing to be deploying into hospitals and courts with no way to inspect it. We test these systems by asking them questions, which tells you what came out. Nobody can yet look at a trillion connections and say what got packed in. - Geoffrey Hinton, Nobel laureate and Turing Award winner, on StarTalk (@StarTalkRadio) with Neil deGrasse Tyson.