There are bindings in java and c++, but python is the industry standard for AI. The libraries for machine learning are actually written in c++, but use python language bindings. Python doesn’t tend to slow things down since machine learning is gpu-bound anyway. There are also library specific programming languages which urges the user to make pythonic code that can be compiled into c++.
I completely agree that it’s a stupid way of doing things, but it is how openai reduced the vocab size of gpt-2 & gpt-3. As far as I know–I have only read the comments in the source code– the conversion is done as a preprocessing step. Here’s the code to gpt-2: https://github.com/openai/gpt-2/blob/master/src/encoder.py I did apparently make a mistake, as the vocab reduction is done through a lut instead of a simple mod.
Can’t find the exact source–I’m on mobile right now–but the code for the gpt-2 encoder uses a utf-8 to unicode look up table to shrink the vocab size. https://github.com/openai/gpt-2/blob/master/src/encoder.py
This might be happening because of the ‘elegant’ (incredibly hacky) way openai encodes multiple languages into their models. Instead of using all character sets, they use a modulo operator on each character, to make all Unicode characters represented by a small range of values. On the back end, it somehow detects which language is being spoken, and uses that character set for the response. Seeing as the last line seems to be the same mathematical expression as what you asked, my guess is that your equation just happened to perfectly match some sentence that would make sense in the weird language.
If C++/C were real languages for real programming they’d enforce unreadability in the compiler.
No sane language designer would say “It is imperative that you write the most unreadable code possible” then write a compiler that says “oh your code doesn’t triple dereference pointers? lol lmao that rocks”
They have played you all for fools.
Rust is the WORST programming “language.”
Recently, I’ve just given up trying to use cuda for machine learning. Instead, I’ve been using (relatively) cpu intensive activation functions & architecture to make up the difference. It hasn’t worked, but I can at least consistently inch forward.
I’m not sure I understand your argument. Are you saying that the emulated processor executes instructions while the SoC doesn’t? Every instruction that goes to the x86 is broken down into several SoC instructions, which the SoC executes in order to emulate what an x86 would do. Saying that the emulated x86 is booting/running Linux, but the SoC is not is like saying that computers can’t run java code, they can only run jvm.
I respectfully disagree. The turning machine is not doing any set-up before the emulated CPU begins execution, and all of the actual BIOS is done by the emulated CPU.
Emulated processors can do the same things as physical processors, including booting from disk.
Yes. Any turing complete processor can perfectly emulate any other turing complete processor, whether it is x86, arm, or riscv. Mainline Linux can then run on this emulated processor without modification.
Anything that’s turning complete, has enough ram, and has a c compiler can run Linux. Theoretically, you could program a CPLD to run brainfuck and you could still run Linux.
Rust isn’t real. Its just a bit much of abbreviated gibberish created by religious fanatics worshipping safe programming practices and reasonable error handling!
The browser we deserve.
The word “have” is used in two different ways. One way is to own or hold something, so if I’m holding a pencil, I have it. But another way is as a way so signal different tenses (as in grammatical tense) so you can say “I shouldn’t have done it” or “they have tried it before.” The contraction “'ve” is only used for tense, but not to own something. So, the phrase “they’ve it” is grammatically incorrect.
I’m assuming English isn’t your first language, but “IPoAC would’ve it’s purpose” is grammatically awkward. “Would’ve” doesn’t really work for possession. Instead you can use “would have,” but people would typically say “IPoAC has it’s purpose”
What environment is this? I like how it looks.
Ah yes, rust. The language that somehow manages to manages to as verbose as possible, with as much jargonized shorthand that a computer could handle.
Did you guys find this hard? There are only four possible ways to move a ring, two of which are disallowed by the rules. Out of the remaining two, one of them is simply undoing what you just did.
Everything can be done in constant time, at least during runtime, with a sufficiently large look-up table. It’s easy! If you want to simulate the universe exactly, you just need a table with nxm entries, where n is the number of plank volumes in the universe, and m is the number of quantum fields. Then, you just need to compute all of them at compile time, and you have O(1) time complexity during runtime.