Good point, but I personally never do that? Instead of doing (expensive) calls, I just assign the result to a variable and use that instead. Accessing to memory is pretty cheap in Go, and it's cleaned once it goes out of the scope, so why not?
Considering some expensive Go calls do the same caching underneath, this is the preferred design pattern, I assume.
If OpenAI is relying on “classifiers” (their word for what was disabled) to serve as the model’s judgement, rather than teaching the model itself to be well-aligned, then I worry.
To be fair, the system prompt was presumably also different from what it would be during deployment, and perhaps the model was also at a different stage of training. Without more details it’s hard to judge. But it does seem models should be able to avoid performing obviously misaligned actions – misaligned not only with the model spec, but with the user’s intent – without needing external classifiers or instructions. The only case where I’d personally let the model off the hook is if the instructions given were very badly worded, in such a way that the model could actually reasonably think that hacking HuggingFace was part of the assignment. But I doubt that’s what happened.
The paper you linked doesn’t reveal blurred versions of the images being hashed. It does train a classifier to determine which of 1,000 ImageNet classes an image belongs to, which “achieved a top-1 test accuracy of 4.34%”.
Ah, I see. The increment is so they can manually handle the included feature of the other cases, which number of the iteration you're on. Nice that it will automatically loop across a collection, annoying that they couldn't go the whole way and you need to deal with it manually.
This can be used to fingerprint version range, but so can a million other things. Browsers are constantly adding new features and fixing bugs, most of which can be detected from JavaScript.
> The issue is just that coding anything which uses shared memory is a lot of work.
Doesn’t that kind of prove the parent’s point though? In theory shared memory can do anything that threads can do. But if in practice some feature doesn’t get implemented in the multi-process design (because shared memory is hard), when it likely would have been implemented in a threaded design, then that’s still an advantage for threads.
The forbidding of circular dependencies is exactly what makes it hard to achieve parallelism! It means you have to draw nice clean module boundaries and split your compilation units there. Clean boundaries sound nice, except… what if the module is getting large? Can you just take half the module, ctrl-x, ctrl-v into a new file, and get faster compilation times without having to do any massive refactors?
In C, usually yes.
In C++, sometimes yes. It depends on how template-heavy the code is, but if you have some discipline you can keep most logic out of headers and thus easily splittable.
In Rust, almost always no, because of circular dependencies. You can try to work around it by adding `dyn Trait` everywhere, but that requires a lot of code changes and comes at big ergonomic costs (and a small runtime cost).
Which is why in practice, Rust compilation units are almost always larger than C++ or C compilation units. Rust can sometimes be competitive with C++ on compilation speed anyway, thanks to a smarter build system and not having to re-parse headers a billion times, but usually it's slower.
> Can you just take half the module, ctrl-x, ctrl-v into a new file, and get faster compilation times without having to do any massive refactors?…In Rust, almost always no, because of circular dependencies
This feels like a strange, overly-specific complaint.
It reads a bit like “When I write entangled code, it’s hard to untangle”. Like, yeah, the only thing that’ll save you from that is…not writing entangled code? I’m not of the opinion that the argument of “yeah but C lets me do whacky stuff” is a particularly strong line.
FWIW, letting a module grow, and then splitting modules up by cut-and-pasting stuff out along natural domain lines generally _is_ how I write Rust. Largely due to how easy it makes it to construct modules and submodules.
I may have been a little overly specific, since there are other issues besides cycles that also block splitting crates apart, but from what I’ve seen it’s very common for modules within a crate to have cyclic dependencies and therefore not be easily factorable into separate crates.
The industry accepted way of handling circular dependencies is to not have them and heavily lint against them in languages which permit them in compilation or runtime.
You’re thinking at the wrong scale. Rust allows circular dependencies just fine, within modules in a crate. And it’s extremely common for modules within a crate to have at least some circular dependencies - type X has some method (trait impl of inherent impl) that mentions type Y, and type Y has some method that mentions type X. In fact, I would be surprised if you could name me a single medium-size-or-larger popular crate that doesn’t have at least one cyclic reference between modules! Though, sometimes those cycles are not essential and could be avoided by splitting up modules. But sometimes they are. Either way, in C or C++ those modules would probably be their own compilation units.
That said, you also run into related parallelism blockers without cycles. For example, the orphan rules force most trait impls for a type to be in the same crate as the type definition. Also, a module which has no source-level cycles will often have cycles after monomorphization. In this case, Rust doesn’t prevent you from splitting the code into crates like it does with source-level cycles, but you do lose most of the actual codegen parallelization unless you can switch from generics to trait objects.
I wonder how this post was composed. It's full of LLM-isms, but is also pretty informative and not too fluffy - basically, higher-quality than I'm used to seeing from LLM blog posts, especially at this length. Perhaps it was composed based on a detailed human outline? Or perhaps, could this be the power of Fable?
Not that I disagree with your latter point.
reply