Recent comments in /f/technology

savuporo OP t1_je2sltf wrote

> I'm sorry, but did this person just say that making it ourselves isn't good enough and we should just subsidize asian industries?

No, you apparently didn't read the article. What the editors letter is saying is that just throwing money at the problem isn't doing what's expected.

They point out three major flaws in the current plan - flaws that pretty much anyone in the industry could have predicted

1

Maximum-Carpet2740 t1_je2shj5 wrote

I employ people.

A lot of people are opportunists and some people like to test the edges to see just what and how much they can get away with.

That being said, large corporations usually have some type of protocol to follow where people are given many chances and where everything is documented before they’re terminated. And they have these processes for good reason. So they don’t get sued. It’s not as simple as just cutting the dead weight.

−1

Prophayne_ t1_je2s6x8 wrote

I'm sorry, but did this person just say that making it ourselves isn't good enough and we should just subsidize asian industries?

Thats undercutting the entire point of this, get rid of our reliance on china and other countries for things we deem important for national defense. I know its not that simple and clean cut, but thats the gist of what the bipartisan politicians who passed this wanted. It brings industry and jobs back to the united states and secures a production line for a valuable strategic asset that would otherwise be cut off by china in a worse case scenario basis.

I agree that its weird to plan for the biggest bad out of the hypothetical, but I'd rather have this stuff and not need it than say, lose an important war due to lack of it.

War is shit. The reasons all of our nations do these things are shit. But until an actual global government takes shape (that places like china, russia and N. Korea will recognize), we gotta keep ourselves safe first.

6

bahumat42 t1_je2rj9o wrote

>people didn’t work consistently, and were constantly having tech issues, or at least were using tech issues as an excuse to get out of work.

Thats either better technology needed or bad employees, either way thats on the company for making those choices.

5

TheFriendlyArtificer t1_je2qiul wrote

How?

The neural network architectures are out in the wild. The weights are trivial to find. Generating your own just requires a ton of training data and some people to annotate. And that's assuming an unsupervised model.

I have a stripped down version of Stable Diffusion running on my home lab. It takes about 25 seconds to generate a single 512x512 image, but this is on commodity hardware with two GPUs from 2016.

If I, a conspicuously handsome DevOps nerd, can do this in a weekend and can deploy it using a single Docker command, what on earth can we do to stop scammers and pissant countries (looking at you, Russia)?

There is no regulating our way out of this. Purpose built AI processors will bring down the cost barrier even more substantially. (Though it is pretty cool to be able to run NN inferences on a processor architecture that was becoming mature when disco was still cool)

Edit: For the curious, the repo with the pre-built Docker files (not mine) is https://github.com/NickLucche/stable-diffusion-nvidia-docker

46