Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

What if pathology foundation models could do more with less? GigaPath-Flash and GigaTIME-Flash cut computational demands while maintaining strong performance, opening the door to larger studies and broader exploration.

18,174 Aufrufe • vor 15 Tagen •via X (Twitter)

2 Kommentare

Profilbild von Fiducial.ai
Fiducial.aivor 14 Tagen

Population-scale runs need a versioned feature manifest for the encoder, tiling and scanner preprocessing. The compute saving loses value if cohorts silently mix incompatible representations.

Profilbild von Neeraj Kumar
Neeraj Kumarvor 15 Tagen

How do the Flash models hold up on external cohorts and rare morphology classes? Compute savings matter only if calibration survives scanner and site shift.

Ähnliche Videos

Computing hardware architecture has evolved from maximizing single-core performance to multiplying parallel processing capacity through more cores, more threads, and higher computational density. This transition demands software architectures specifically designed to exploit parallel processing, especially in advanced AI and blockchain-based systems. As Greg Meredith, CEO of our partner F1R3FLY. io, notes, "We need software architectures that can eat physical threads of computation and turn that into throughput." Traditional sequential programming models often struggle to effectively leverage the potential of these multi-core systems, creating a bottleneck in performance scaling. Rholang addresses this challenge through its foundation in the Rho-Calculus, a reflective higher-order process calculus specifically designed for inherent concurrency and reflection. Unlike computational models based on sequential execution or those that bolt on concurrency primitives, Rholang can leverage its process-oriented nature to detect and distribute non-interfering logical computation threads across available physical processing units, creating a more direct correlation between hardware resources and performance scaling. The Rho-Calculus was specifically designed to provide the minimal set of operations needed to model autonomous agents operating in parallel while maintaining the ability to represent their own reasoning processes. This structure mirrors the operational characteristics of intelligent systems, where autonomous processes run independently while communicating and coordinating. For our novel decentralized AI platform, MeTTaCycle, this future-proof architectural foundation enables more than just enhanced transactional throughput; it fosters an environment where independent computational processes can efficiently coexist and interact, forming a critical layer for the Artificial Superintelligence Alliance's decentralized AGI infrastructure and products.

SingularityNET

29,368 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

glm 5.3 vs qwen 3.8 vs gemini 3.7 vs deepseek v4 flash four models designed and built three structures each on a physics-backed site, with no dimensions anywhere in the brief the setup: our own agent loop on OpenRouter, a construction site as the tool set – footings, walls, arches, roofs, scaffold, a lamp. the site enforces physics and nothing else: unsupported brick falls, a roof needs walls under it, a worker reaches 3.2 m above whatever he stands on, an arch needs centring until the keystone is set, concrete cures before it carries. no budget ceiling – material cost is tallied and reported, never blocked. tasks: 1. house – a plot and a palette, no plan. shape, height and material are the model's call 2. lighthouse – a headland cut by a gully, with a rock stack standing 30 m offshore. the lamp must burn, it must be the highest thing built, and the keeper must be able to walk to it 3. bridge – a river with one islet and banks at different heights. cross it however you want models: Z.ai glm 5.3 flash, Qwen qwen 3.8 flash, Google DeepMind gemini 3.7 flash, DeepSeek v4 flash vision all twelve objects were finished and signed off by the models themselves. tallest lighthouse is qwen's at 38.4 m, planted on the offshore stack with a bridge run out to it – the only model that read the site that way. deepseek signed off its bridge on an empty riverbed: 0 bricks, 107 minutes, $1.16m of material tallied - total cost, three builds #1 glm 5.3 flash – $0.201 #2 gemini 3.7 flash – $0.871 #3 qwen 3.8 flash – $1.058 #4 deepseek v4 flash – $1.567 - wall clock, three builds #1 gemini 3.7 flash – 91m #2 glm 5.3 flash – 228m #3 deepseek v4 flash – 502m #4 qwen 3.8 flash – 912m - total tokens #1 gemini 3.7 flash – 3,567,052 #2 glm 5.3 flash – 4,732,748 #3 qwen 3.8 flash – 13,469,333 #4 deepseek v4 flash – 18,230,076 - defects logged by the site #1 deepseek v4 flash – 59 #2 gemini 3.7 flash – 132 #3 glm 5.3 flash – 221 #4 qwen 3.8 flash – 350 - material tallied across three builds #1 gemini 3.7 flash – $359,884 #2 glm 5.3 flash – $583,358 #3 deepseek v4 flash – $1,327,484 #4 qwen 3.8 flash – $2,188,625 observations: • glm is the cheap one and nothing here is close – $0.201 for three buildings, $0.042 per million tokens, 6x under gemini's rate • what glm spends it on is bulk, not care: 166,228 bricks in one house and 156 defect weight, the worst single object in the set • gemini is the efficiency line – 91 minutes and 3.57m tokens for all three and an eighth of qwen's clock • gemini also builds the smallest of everything. its lighthouse is 22.5 m against qwen's 38.4, its house 6.9 m against 19.3 • qwen is the maximalist: 1.18m bricks, $2.19m of material, tallest on all three tasks, and 912 minutes – 15 hours – to get there conclusion: twelve finished objects for $3.80 all in, and a 7.8x price spread between the cheapest model and the priciest! follow thehype. for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns

thehype.

26,250 Aufrufe • vor 18 Tagen