Also... One of the only industries/products where unusable product/seevice (token / context burned) is neither refunded let alone even acknowledged. I wonder how many millions of dollars of inference have been stolen during these outages? First you lose the work in flight, then you lose the time, and finally you lose the token burn for a second time. What a fantastic time to not have any regulations if you're rich and greedy!
I'd argue that it's not even corporations anymore of which we should try to hold accountable. It's very clear who is making these calls as the players involved (Musk, Zuckerberg, Altman, Amodei, Thiel, Karp, Luckey, Langley, Nadella, Bezos, Pichai, Tann, etc) want nothing more than to be in the limelight and "preach" to the masses that they know best. They're more brazen year over year as they gain confidence in their unchecked power and continued accrual of wealth. The more money the more disconnected from reality and the stronger assumptions they build. And they have zero compassion. All of these people are dangerous to humanity individually, but when you start to realize how many have emerged and have no filter or checked powers publicly that becomes a truly terrifying thing.
I've recently started reading "End Times Fascism" [0] and it truly encompasses where we are at, how we got here and the bleak future we may be in for if we don't get in front of this now. But this book definitely highlights a lot of what some of the tech community has been seeing and hand waving about for years. The worn out trope that we should hold corporations accountable doesn't work. We should hold the people at the top accountable like other nations do because if they want the limelight then they should bear the responsibility that comes with abuses. The US is becoming a caste system by design. National surveillance, erosion of access to resources for personal compute, bought and paid for politicians and laws that don't apply to the wealthy.
It's actually nothing like that, and is surely not how it's marketed or sold. I guess you're OK paying a monthly fee for Internet and having the access be unavailable for random parts of your working day because you want to anthropomorphize it? The defense with which people will go to bat for these shitty companies is wild.
It doesn't seem execution was a problem. From Kevin Buzzard's blog:
I’ve compiled the code base and run comparator on it — it checks out. It is a gigantic proof (over 13.4 million lines of code) and takes nearly 20 times as long to compile as Lean’s mathematics library (on a machine with 96 cores!). Lean can be sluggish when jumping from file to file on a repo of this size (even on a machine with 500G of ram, which Anthropic also gave me access to), but Anthropic also supplied me with some html documents which are easier in practice to explore (clone the repo and open with a web browser).
500G of RAM is not actually that huge tbh (I was looking to buy a used 1TB server blade for some personal stuff a while ago but it was too much hassle) so I don't guess there was too much potential for buffer overflows.
I would say it’s very unlikely to be the case here at least.
Of course some bugs in Lean may exist (I don’t have deep insight into Lean’s implementation and there have been bugs before), but I find it unlikely to be systematical or in a format that could affect the proof.
As I understand it, Lean is implemented in Lean and emits/compiles to C. In that C code, I’d be very surprised if any buffer overflows or stack overflows exist.
Such overflows are not difficult or expensive to detect, so if any were there, it should cause a crash instead of an incorrect result.
It’s not as in handwritten C where you can forget or omit a bounds check.
I’d say it is even less likely than seeing an overflow in the Core of Java cause an incorrect result (i.e. corruption instead of a crash) - because Lean uses the De Bruijn principle of reducing to a very small Core, that is easier to keep correct (others in this thread have expanded on this I better than I can I think).
Out of pure curiosity: Do you believe otherwise or have a reason to think I am mistaken?
Stack overflows are also trivial to check for, if one wants to. It's just comparing two pointers, plus checking for arithmetic overflow (in case the pointers run past the maximum value of the pointer type).
Ridiculous bag analogy they use - I think we all have a bunch of plastic bags as it's easy to forget to take one out - much better if I remembered a cotton one.
The carbon footprint of producing an EV is higher than an ICE. Nobody disputes that.
But the lower carbon footprint of operating the an EV makes the EV have a lower footprint over the life of the vehicle. This is true even if your electricity comes purely from coal, as a coal power plant gets an economy of scale that an ICE doesn't achieve. If your power comes from a renewable source, then the trade-off happens even sooner.
Questioning the lithium source is valid, but also a red herring when we're talking about environmental impact.
But yes, battery minerals can involve human rights abuses. But ICE vehicles are also built from steel, aluminum, copper, rubber, electronics, and metals that can involve forced labor, unsafe mining, land displacement, pollution, or exploitative labor. The ethical issue is supply chain due diligence across the whole auto industry, not just lithium.
Funny how some people (Mostly anti-EV folks) only discover supply chain ethics only when the car has a battery.
what car company is using forced labor as you are claiming that is pretty serious, almost all except China, are built in countries with strong labor unions.
what I really hate is that EVs have given people a false sense of superiority that seemingly stems from their curious unwillingness to look at the ugly environmental and human rights abuses around the lithium sourcing.
> what car company is using forced labor as you are claiming that is pretty serious, almost all except China, are built in countries with strong labor unions.
You're conflating final car assembly with the sourcing of the raw materials.
GM's report [0] says "We have reason to believe that certain of the 3TG in our products may have originated in a Covered Country [1] and may not have all come from recycled or scrap sources."
Honda admits [2] "Among all the smelters and refiners disclosed to us by our suppliers, we determined that some of them processed minerals sourced in the DRC or its adjoining countries."
I read reports from other car manufacturers and they're all full of the same weasel words. Ford says "We do not knowingly procure materials that contribute to child and forced labor, bribery and corruption, conflict, or environmental concerns" [3] while admitting "Through our 2023 data collection and due diligence efforts described below, Ford has reason to believe some 3TG contained in our products may come from Covered Countries."
Most world lithium production is attributed to spodumene mining in Australia, Brazil, Zimbabwe, and Canada, and to brine operations in Chile, China, and Argentina
Can you please link to these prior two occasions you've asked me this question?
I have no recollection of ever having addressed you or being addressed by you before this interaction.
(EDIT: we have had zero intersection in HN comments for at least 16 days.)
I suspect you've confused a user name.
Still, to address your question, for the very first time, there are reports of car companies in China, Japan and elsewhere being linked to third party forced labour practices - Toyota, for one example, made a comprehensive statement in 2021 to explain how they were acting to mitigate (ie minimise, reduce, limit) their existing exposure to Forced Labor of Migrant Workers and the Modern Slavery Acts. That 13 page statement is essentially a confession that Yes, they did rely on parts in the supply chain with a forced labour element and Yes, we will minimise this but it will likely be hard to entirely eliminate this.
If you like I can link to this statement, should you be unable to unable to find it yourself.
Would you now be kind enough to expand on your statement about the lithium supply chain and sensibly compare it to the environmental damages of the fossil fuel industry?
reply