Bandwidth is very important for low latency with wireless VR. To have a low latency you need to give the VR headset a video stream of at least 90 fps. That means every 11ms the headset needs a full screen frame of video. Over regular Wi-Fi 5 from my phone I can ping my desktop in 4ms so is the latency problem solved? The problem is there is not enough consistent bandwidth over my consumer Wi-Fi router to maintain a high quality experience in VR.
Enthusiasts solve this problem with a dedicated VR only Wi-Fi router connected to their PC but now it will be much easier with the included 6Ghz Wi-Fi dongle in the box
In the Tested review, they got 5ms latency with the dedicated wifi stick! I believe that was with 250mbit streaming. If they set it to max streaming bandwidth, it was 50ms or so.
I have a dedicated Wifi 6 (not 6e, so just miss/using the 5 GHz band) AP just for VR, directly connected to my PC and it works well Virtual Desktop & Quest 3.
Have done quite a lot of quite active stuff (exploration, driving, flying, fighting games) and it really is seamless and I don't notice any lag as long as the game itself manages good FPS.
If you really concentrate on the graphics, you can see some compression artifacts in places, but it is unnoticeable when you are actually doing VR stuff, not just looking for it. :)
For the Frame, this should all be much better - easier setup, much better available bandwidth (dongle has Wifi 7), efficient foveated streaming, etc. :) I would exect better image quality (more bandwidth, more efficient streaming), better FPS (more efficient rendering) and better image quality (can reduce compression).
I would not talk to my friends about the stuff I bounce on AI. My meanest brain dead ideas get a rebuke, and I fight back to test grounds. I'd rightly get shamed for inflicting such undeveloped trash on anyone.
Once your data is out there it's too late. If the hypothetical country you live in - where freedom & due process is respected - suddenly has an authoritarian change of direction, you're done.
It's my understanding that, organically or under external influences, many democratic countries in EU are at the emerging risk of going full fascists. I see that in France, Le Pen & friends don't hide the fact that they'd make a new constitution.
Richest guy in the world has vowed to use his propaganda power to make this happen for the sake of cancelling the EU, fun times
I fail to see how this particular "anime girl" and the potential for clients seeing it, could make you think that's a fair request. That seems extremely ridiculous to me.
Safety in the context of LLMs means “avoiding bad media coverage or reputation damage for the parent company”
It has only a tangential relationship with end user safety.
If some of these companies are successful the way they imagine, most of their end users will be unemployed. When they talk about safety, it’s the companies safety they’re referring to.
Investor safety. It's amazing that people in hn threads still think the end-user is the customer. No. The investor is the customer, and the problem being solved for that curtomer is always how to enrich them.
It feels hard to include enough context in the system prompt. Facebook’s content policy is huge and very complex. You’d need lots of examples, which lends itself well to SFT. A few sentences is not enough, either for a human or a language model.
I feel the same sort of ick with the puritanical/safety thing, but also I feel that ick when kids are taken advantage of:
I also don't get it. I mean if the training data is publicly available, why isn't that marked as dangerous? If the training data contains enough information to roleplay a killer or a hooker or build a bomb, why is the model censored?
If you don’t believe that you can be harmed verbally, then I understand your position. You might be able to empathise if the scenario was an LLM being used to control physical robotic systems that you are standing next to.
Some people can be harmed verbally, I’d argue everyone if the entity conversing with you knows you well, and so i don’t think the concept of safety itself is an infantilisation.
It seems what we have here is a debate over the efficacy of having access to disable safeguards that you deem infantilising and that get in the way of an objective, versus the burden of always having to train a model to avoid being abusive for example, or checking if someone is standing next to the sledgehammer they’re about to swing at 200rpm
The first one has been argued against quite nicely by Piketty, it's how you get plutocracy
The three other ones should not be treated as Rights since the concerned individual is no more, and they don't matter much anyway if coming against the rights of people (that means "living"). For instance collecting organs for the good of those who need, when evaluated, should trump any opposition on frivolous grounds.
I'm indead asking if the whole concept is not wrong and deeply harmful to societies
Unless someone is hurt you can believe what you want. Otherwise it's necessary to weight what's to be gained and lost by entertaining net negative stances on frivolous grounds; and why we should then chose to do so.
reply