>> I’ve seen pages that are still top 3 for a particular competitive query years later, simply because they were one of the first to write about it.
With so many copycats on the internet, first to publish seems like a fairly good indication of the original source. But as we can see here, that's not always true.
Better if it can anticipate its response before you're done speaking. That would be subject to change depending what the speaker says, but it might be able to start immediately.
Thinking while I'm speaking means it isn't listening to everything I've said before thinking what to say. If I start my reply with "no, because...", and it's already formulating its response based on the "no" and not what comes after the because, then it's not thinking before it speaks.
The model can have a reasonable good guess of what you are trying to say, and use 'speculative' thinking. Just like CPU's use branch prediction.
In the common case, you say what the model predicted, and thus the model can use its speculative thinking. In the rare case where you deviated from the prediction, the model thinks from scratch.
(You can further cut down on latency, by speculatively thinking about the top two predictions, instead of just the top prediction. Just costs you more parallel compute.)
This is also all very similar to a chess player who thinks about her next turn, on your turn.
>> And we 'tried until it didn't blow up immediately' is not a great sign.
But everything that didn't blow up has been tested 11 times already. Things that did fail have had more than one design iteration tested. One approach has gains more real-world test experience.
NASA is constrained by the triple-whammy of taxpayer dollars, an administration that hates public science, and a market that rewards private enterprise more than them.
JPL would blow up a rocket every week, if the budget had room for it. Alas, we don't see that testing pace outside defense procurement.
I was referring to the quote “JPL would blow up a rocket every week, if the budget had room for it.” That makes it sound as if JPL can’t afford to follow the SpaceX strategy, hence my question.
Solvespace has a fairly robust solution to this problem - for the cases that it handles. It does not create accessible edges for things like the intersection of surfaces, which won't be a big deal until we have a chamfer/fillet tool where you might want to modify those edges. But change an underlying sketch all you want and all geometry built from it will remain intact except for stuff built on something you delete.
IIRC the FreeCAD solution tends to create names of ever-increasing length as you continue building.
With so many copycats on the internet, first to publish seems like a fairly good indication of the original source. But as we can see here, that's not always true.
reply