Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

🚨 SCIENTISTS JUST BUILT A CHIP THAT CAN SEE, THINK, AND REMEMBER ALL AT THE SAME TIME. And it works more like a biological brain than a traditional computer. Researchers at RMIT University have created a neuromorphic vision chip that mimics the human eye and brain. Unlike conventional systems...

23,196 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

HTML Artifacts are a big part of how I work with agents now. Artifacts can be more than just static files. When combined with agents, they can take action or help you take action. This unlocks all kinds of interesting ways to work with agents. This is clearly the future. Check out this writing and scheduler artifact I built in a few minutes. It uses a bit of HTML and JS. All the data is in markdown (Obsidian vaults), so the agent can access and modify it at any time. No DB needed. No sophisticated functionalities. The agent decides all that for me based on the skills, context, and memory it has access to. The best part about this simple stack is that all the important information stays with me. This has allowed me to build a recursive self-improving system and automations that can better tap into coding agents like Codex or Claude Code. I could have paid or built an entire app for scheduling posts, and there are so many of them out there. But I don't need to. I've realized a simple artifact does the job. And the simplicity of it is actually an advantage. Very little maintenance for very high returns on personalization, time, and efficiency. The other benefit of this is that I can add features as I please. That level of personalization feels magical, and we should all be pursuing more of it. All of this just keeps compounding. Of course, this example is just about writing. But I have similar artifacts for research, design, experimentation, evaluation, and so much more. And no, I didn't actually publish the post example I shared in the clip. It was just for demonstration purposes. I actually spend more time than this when writing together with agents. Lastly, having built my own agent orchestrator tool has made me realize that simplifying the tool stack is a superpower. If you are curious about how all this works, I will do a live session next week:

elvis

18,374 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Are you safer with LIDAR, or are you safer with vision? This is a false dichotomy. The more pertinent question today is "do you have something, or do you have nothing?" As you can see from the clips below, vision based systems avoid countless potential collisions every day. The difference between a crash and no crash isn't what sensor suite you chose — it's whether you have any AI on your car at all. Even if we concede that LIDAR may help prevent some additional crashes, we are really debating whether it is 1% of crashes or 0.00001% of crashes. Not all crashes are super complex and require lasers to detect. Most are simple, routine, and can easily be prevented by today's vision based AI. In fact, evidence is mounting that computer vision based systems can actually outperform more traditional approaches to self-driving. Why? Because the low cost of cameras enables you to create a much larger, more varied, and more diverse dataset. If you want to have expensive custom cars that's fine, but you're going to get fewer vehicles for the same budget. Seeing what's in front of you now is actually less important than predicting what's going to happen next — and the large scale datasets used to train pure vision systems are the best for predicting what's next. Counter-intuitively, the simpler and lower cost sensor actually has properties that make it better suited for training advanced AI. Computer vision based self-driving is often framed by LIDAR proponents as "cheaping out" on the sensor suite to save money. But it's not about being cheap, it's about bringing the technology to everyone. 1.2 million people die on the road every year around the world. That's around 39 million people who've died on the roads around the world since I was born — equivalent to a city the size of Tokyo or New Delhi getting wiped off the map. The status quo is simply unacceptable, and something has to be done to fix it as soon as possible. Of the 1.2 million people that will die on the roads this year, about 40,000 will be Americans. That's about 3%. So if we moved entirely to self-driving cars in America and brought crashes down to 0, 97% of the world's crash fatalities would still be taking place as usual. Deploying a $200,000+ retrofitted self-driving car may work in a few American cities, but it is not going to make sense in most places around the world where fares are much cheaper. Most often, the choice is not between LIDAR and vision. It's between vision or nothing. The best system is the system that's there running on my car when I need it to save my life. To say that all self-driving cars must have LIDAR is to sentence most of the world to death. We can't write off computer vision if we want to make a serious dent in this problem. It's going to be a key piece of the solution. Let LIDAR based players build the best self-driving car they can, and let vision based players do the same. We need to be trying everything

Whole Mars Catalog

45,801 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

This fact absolutely shatters evolution. ...And makes the intelligent design in Life certain. All the systems in Life that make things function - like everything that enables birds to fly - require a whole set of complex interconnected parts. Nothing works in isolation. Something evolutionists overlook is how the nature of all these systems are intricately interconnected. Every part relies on something else to make it work. You need the whole system, down to the DNA itself, or the function fails. This coordinattion between so many systems makes step-by-step evolution all but impossible. For instance... A wing isn’t just bones and feathers (or membrane). A wing requires a certain type of hollow bones, which the alleged ancestors of birds didn't have. And wings by themselves are useless - what reproductive benefit would wings have without the accompanying systems that lead to actual flight (the simultaneous requirements for bone pneumatization, muscle attachment sites, feather or membrane development, and the regulatory changes that control all of them)? Wings without these features would be harmful. Hollow bones without flight would be detrimental. The step-by-step path leading from non-bird to flying birds is filled with easily killed, unselectable intermediates. This is where evolutionists constantly fail - they look at modification in isolation, without considering that these systems are large, interconnected networks of functional parts all working together. And it all starts at the genetic level, from the DNA itself. DNA genes code for proteins. Regulatory information organizes when these proteins are built and how much should be made. Further regulatory systems coordinate where these proteins go after they’re built. And yet more informational networks place the proteins into the final system in coordination with other proteins. Then these protein systems are fit together to make entire organs, tissues, bones, etc. All of these systems and processes are coordinated from the DNA - which means major modification like turning a fish fin into a bird wing requires many coordinated DNA changes across the entire network. One change at a time simply cannot lead to the coordination of an entire multi-part coordinated system like this. A mutation that changes one protein would need another coordinated mutation to fit that mutated protein into the right place, which would require other proteins to be mutated to fit together into that system, which would also require yet more regulatory mutations to keep everything coordinated... Nothing works in isolation. It's all connected. Which is why it can't evolve one step at a time. One step at a time does nothing. Life requires all or nothing systems. Only intelligence can engineer all or nothing systems.

Divinely Designed

47,292 Aufrufe • vor 9 Tagen

It's 2030 and you are reviewing humanoid robots. A Tesla. A Google. An Apple. An OpenAI. A Meta. A Figure. And a bunch of Chinese-made ones. Which one is best, and why? I think the Tesla understands the world much better. Why? There were eight Teslas around me on the freeway today. Start there. No other robot company has that data. But my robot is parked at the local high school twice a day. Its cameras see humans in all of our weirdness. How we move. Where we go. Where we walk. Who we talk with. What you are wearing. Whether your hair was combed this morning. That data will lead to robotics breakthroughs. Apple might keep up with its Vision Pro data, but it is too freaked out by the privacy implications of using said data. (On the front are six cameras and a couple of TOF -- Time Of Flight -- sensors that can see everything in your home in great detail). Google has a lot of data, for sure. All my: 1. Email. 2. Calendars. 3. Photos. 4. TV watching behavior. 5. Contacts. 6. Documents and spreadsheets. 7. Files. 8. Location data. So I expect Google's robot will be attractive to many. But how do you see the others shake out over the next five years? Make some guesses. But remember what an AI pioneer told me years ago about AI: it's all about the data. The Chinese ones have huge advantages: the Chinese have more data on their citizens, and many more citizens to boot AND they can make robots cheaper than we can. But now that you know OpenAI is building its own robot you have caught wind of what I've heard from many in San Francisco and Silicon Valley: that humanoid robots are the real prize of AI and will be highly profitable for those that can make them and find customers willing to buy them. Here, too, I learned long ago never to bet against Elon Musk. Will you?

Robert Scoble

33,804 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

THAT $70 "RUN YOUR OWN LLMS" PI KIT CAN'T RUN A SINGLE LLM. IT'S A VISION CHIP WITH NO RAM. that clip sells a raspberry pi 5 in a slick case with an ai accelerator and the caption "your own llms." clean build, fun kit. the claim is where it breaks. the fine print: the popular $70 pi ai kit uses a hailo-8l, 13 tops. it's built for vision, object detection and image processing, and it has no memory of its own. so it cannot run large language models. full stop the board that actually can is a different one: the newer ai hat+ 2, hailo-10h, 40 tops, with 8gb of dedicated ram. that's $130, not $70 and even that runs only tiny models. llama 3.2 at 1b, qwen 2.5 at 1.5b, deepseek r1 at 1.5b. edge llms live in the 1-7b range, against cloud models at 500b to 2 trillion so the honest pitch: for $130 you can run a very small language model on a pi, slowly, as a fun learning project. that's real and it's cool. "your own llms" on a $70 vision kit is not. why this keeps happening: "ai kit" and a big "tops" number sell. tops sounds like intelligence. but tops measures vision-style math, not whether the chip has the memory to hold a language model. the spec that matters for llms is ram, and the cheap kit has none. the honest caveats, both ways: the $70 kit is genuinely great, just at vision. cameras, object detection, that's its job the $130 hat really does run small llms locally, which a pi couldn't do at all two years ago. that's progress "small" is the load-bearing word. don't expect gpt at home on a pi the takeaway: before you buy a kit because the caption says llm, check two numbers. not the tops. the ram, and the size of the model it can actually load. no 70-dollar miracle, no gpt in a pi case, no tops number that means what you think. save this before you buy the wrong kit for the word on the box.

RetroChainer

11,100 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Just weeks ago I considered this to be a map of Superchargers. The foundation that made EV’s a going concern for the first time. But it’s not. These dots represent fully permitted and built power stations in an era where every AI player is trying to figure out how to get power for compute. This is the largest electrical power moat I’ve ever seen that can fully supply current and future charging needs while collecting and storing cheaper power during off-peak to supply an AI revolution. Elon doesn’t care who knows anymore. 2nd place is… crumbs. AWS was built from excess server space needed during peak demand. Now it’s bigger and more valuable than the core Amazon retail business. Tesla is about to drop a hardware smackdown right in the face of software engineers. AI prototypes are easy. Scaling is hard. If only Tesla had a factory pouring out millions of chips each year that are underutilized 95% of the time. Each with their own battery storage. Imagine that. Tesla could call them ‘cars’. And that power moat? It’s all fully upgradable. It’s primed to be tripled. Only a handful of Tesla charging stations currently have solar and/or Megapacks. For 14 years Tesla has permitted and built the gas stations of the future around the world. Everyone said it would fail. All of them were wrong. And now Tesla is in a process of creating a possible 10x value stamp on those stations that should have never been built. It makes you wonder, When a vehicle now leaves the Tesla factory; how do we even begin to calculate the economic production that it will generate during its lifetime? It’s a Robotaxi, energy storage, and a fully sealed/cooled compute processor. They may as well start shitting gold out of a tailpipe.

No Safe Words

56,740 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten