That was an unsubstantive comment, that started a generic tangent, and veers onto the wrong side of these parts of the guidelines:
Don't be snarky. Converse curiously
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents.
I understand you probably didn't know that or may not accept the assessment, and that's fine, but please know that we consider it important that comments should be about the article's primary topic and that they activate curious conversation.
Thanks for understanding. I know it can feel like a bummer when your comment was at the top of the thread, getting lots of upvotes and replies, only to see it suddenly buried lower down the thread.
The main issue for us is just about relevance. The topic of the post is the 4GB model installed with Chrome. That's what the top comment and discussion needs to be about.
Of course, your comment, being about a competing browser, isn't completely irrelevant, it's just not the most relevant issue or the most important one to discuss in seeking to understand the primary topic. It's not an egregious breach of the guidelines – hence I said "veers onto the wrong side". I think you get it.
Splitting a big task (like anything ML-related) into a set of smaller ones and distribute them across the "fleet" of workers. Then reap the results, stitching it back into a single artifact at the end. This could be commercially viable. This could even become a p2p platform/market where some people basically buy computation while the others offer their hardware for temporary rent to earn a few bucks. You become the coordinator that just connects the demand with the supply and become rich from just commissions alone.
Absolutely! What's _really_ cool is that if you have disjoint computational steps that don't necessarily scale together linearly, you could split them into separately deployed `pln seeds` and let the cluster organically balance the compute as the different usage patterns occur. And yes, "p2p compute on demand" is certainly an intriguing idea.
Doesn't the problem of quality now being barely distinguishable mean that manufacturers would aim to fool consumers by setting high prices to low quality goods to mimic as high quality goods (which probably can't be cheap by definition)?
If that is so - the rest of your points become invalid.
That's a good advice in general to treat any software as untrusted black box as much as possible. But it raises (slightly, but still does) the cost/effort for the user: the user now has to make extra steps and take extra caution.
These concerns were great valid even before vibecoding becoming a thing, but now the estimated probabilities of malicious code's presence have changed, simply because nowadays the cost/effort of writing software plummeted.
reply