CephFS implements a (fully?) POSIX filesystem while it seems that TernFS makes tradeoffs by losing permissions and mutability for further scale.
Their docs mention they have a custom kernel module, which I suppose is (today) shipped out of tree. Ceph is in-tree and also has a FUSE implementation.
The docs mention that TernFS also has its own S3 gateway, while RADOSGW is fully separate from CephFS.
My (limited) understanding is that cephfs, RGW (S3), RBD (block device) are all different things using the same underlying RADOS storage.
You can't mount and access RGW S3 objects as cephfs or anything, they are completely separate (not counting things like goofys, s3fs etc.), even if both are on the same rados cluster.
Not sure if TernFS differs there, would be kind of nice to have the option of both kinds of access to the same data.
Does their training corpus respect copyrights or do you have to follow their opt out procedure to keep them from consuming your data? Assuming it’s the latter, it’s open-er but still not quite there.
> Unlike many prior models that release weights without reproducible data pipelines or regard for content-owner rights, Apertus models are pretrained exclusively on openly available data, retroactively respecting robots.txt exclusions and filtering for copyrighted, non-permissive, toxic, and personally identifiable content.
Afaik they respect robots.txt on crawl and later when using the data they re-check the robots.txt and will exclude the data if the new robots.txt was updated to deny access. They have further data filtering bit for that you better check the technical report.
I feel that the article draws a false equivalence between skepticism and doomsaying. If anything, thinking AI is as dangerous as a nuclear weapon signals a true believer.
TFA doesn't even draw an "equivalence" between those two positions; it merely misuses the word "skeptic" to mean "true believer in the Singularity."
TFA mourns the disappearance of true believers — those pundits saying LLMs would quickly achieve AGI and then go on to basically destroy the world. As that prediction became more obviously false, the pundits quietly stopped repeating it.
"Skeptics" is not, and never was, the label for those unbridled believers/evangelists; the label was "AI doomers." But an essay titled "Where have all the AI doomers gone?" wouldn't get clicks because the title question pretty much answers itself.
Exactly. “AI will take over the world because it’s dangerously smart” is the exact opposite of skepticism!
There are different arguments as to why AI is bad, and they’re not all coming from the same people! There’s the resource argument (it’s expensive and bad for the environment), the quality argument (hallucinations, etc.), the ethical argument (stealing copyrighted material), the moral argument (displacing millions of jobs is bad), and probably more I’m forgetting.
Sam Altman talking about the dangers of AI in front of Congress accomplishes two things: It’s great publicity for AI’s capabilities (what CEO doesn’t want to possess the technology that could take over the world?), and it sets the stage for regulatory capture, protecting the big players from upstarts by making it too difficult/expensive to compete.
I am also tired of this whole "hallucination" nonsense
These LLMs are buggy as hell. They say they can do certain things - reasoning, coding, summarizing, research, etc - but they can't. They mangle those jobs. They are full of bugs and the teams behind them have proved they can't debug them. They thought they could "scale laws" out of it but that proved as unfruitful as it was illogical.
What class of software can work this bad and still have people convinced the only solution is to double the amount of compute and data they need, again?
> What class of software can work this bad and still have people convinced the only solution is to double the amount of compute and data they need, again?
My biggest worry (and I still have some of those other concerns) is for school-age children using it instead of having to learn how to read for information and to write in their own words.
For everyone who argues, "naysayers said that letting schoolchildren use calculators would ruin their minds, but it didn't," how many people do you know who can make a good estimate of their share of a restaurant bill without pulling out their phones? Think about how that translates to how well they grasp at a glance what they're getting themselves into with Klarna, car loans, etc.
It also only seems to be interested in what tech CEOs have to say - people who were as disingenuous about their doom mongering as they were about their gold rush mentality.
Not to pick on you, but there are always posts like this in every Erlang thread. One is not strictly superior to the other, and the BEAM community benefits from the variety IMO.
Containerization is amazingly great for scientific computing. I don’t ever want to go back to doing the make && make install dance and praying I’ve got my dependency ducks in a row.
The only real feature of Docker is the ability to keep unmaintained software running as the world around it moves forward. Academics could do the same thing by just distributing read only VMs as well.
Surely containers make it far easier to deploy/distribute maintained software as it makes it so much easier for people to switch to a newer version without needing to worry about incompatible versions of libraries etc. that can break something else. It can be used for pinning a specific older version of software for "reasons", but I think that's less common.
Consider people using a containerised NgINX webserver as a reverse proxy - it's so much easier to keep it up to date compared to using a distribution's version of NgINX.
I’m afraid not; I have become a tiny bit disillusioned with open source and I’m keeping some of my projects to myself now.
I’ll probably release the code I wrote for the input radio station but that’s just a glorified script written in Rust and calling FFmpeg. The only fun part of that is I call OpenAI to get AI commercials and DJ chatter.
Broadly: Still forging ahead building a game server framework in Erlang. I've shifted my attention away from Godot integration (which AFAIK is still working) and toward LÖVE and Lua. Godot is great, but having to write GDScript on the client and Erlang on the backend has caused me many headaches in my game logic. My current goal is to have a beautiful, concurrent, Erlang-based control plane with Lua-based game logic running on both the server and the client.
To that end, I've most recently been hacking on Robert Virding's Luerl (https://github.com/rvirding/luerl), working to adapt the Lua test suite to chase down some small compatibility issues between PUC Lua and Luerl. While Lua is a lovely language, it would also be swell to get Fennel working under Luerl. I wrote a game for the LÖVE jam a few months ago in Fennel and it was a pleasant way to dip my toes into lisp-likes.
I've also been adding things to control plane software, Overworld, here and there: https://github.com/saltysystems/overworld
Happily all of the Protobuf and ENet stuff that I've already built nicely carries over into the LÖVE world.
It still is. There's been attempts at porting the game to modern engines (Space Station 14 having the most progress), but SS13 is still alive and well.
/tg/station's github is very interesting, too. About a dozen pull requests every week adding random features and bug fixes from random contributors. The game is constantly in flux, but they manage to keep everything feeling the same.
As a formally very active BYOND community member (joined 2003), BYOND's heyday was probably 15 years ago. Space Station 13 is its last vestige of relevance unfortunately. I've always wished for a new/updated equivalent version of it to crop up but nothing has really filled the same niche. It used to be a pretty vibrant community of (very) amateur game developers.
Basically it is a fully contained multi-user game development environment created by two friends, Dan and Tom around 2000. It has its own language, DM (DreamMaker), roughly based on C and Python. It has a map editor and server software. You would write a game and then host it and then anyone else who had the BYOND client software could connect to the server and run it. The server acted as the source of truth and the clients were effectively dumb clients just rendering. It had limitations (frankly a lot of limitations), but for the time it ran pretty damn well for reasonably sized 2d top down games. While you could publish your game to the BYOND site, you could also run it will no connection to the centralized BYOND hub.
The secret sauce was the combined game dev environment and how simple it made networking. You basically didn't have to think about any of it because the total game state was run by a server the you or someone else would host. The client just had to download the interface.
The development environment was bare bones but the language was so simple that it didn't really matter. Over simplifying but basically movable objects were of type "mob" and background tiles were of type "turf". Both inherited from "atom". You could also write like 5 lines of code defining 1 mob and 1 turf and walk around in your new world with others online. You could then add "verbs" basically functions that the mob could take and "procs" which are just all other functions you'd want to write.
- Forum entry from 2000 by one of the creators https://web.archive.org/web/20250325092124/http://www.byond.com/forum/post/194515
- Getting started writing games post (formatting is all broken on this archived version but the text is there): https://web.archive.org/web/20190402034657/http://www.byond.com/forum/post/46230
- Interesting crash course on everything from 2023: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzAzMtWa0u0
- Probably the biggest game that made it out of just cult following was NEStalgia: http://www.silkgames.com/nestalgia/
Their docs mention they have a custom kernel module, which I suppose is (today) shipped out of tree. Ceph is in-tree and also has a FUSE implementation.
The docs mention that TernFS also has its own S3 gateway, while RADOSGW is fully separate from CephFS.