[deleted by user]
Well done, meat popsicle :)
[deleted by user]
[deleted by user]
How can you not reference this gem of an SCP entry?
PS This sounds super interesting, looking forward to try it.
PPS I am waiting for the day when I can run this on my phone.
[deleted by user]
I am waiting for the day when you can run this kind of models directly on the phone.
[deleted by user]
Unfortunately i need to use android.
Termux + CPU inference +llamacpp can get ~4B models running, even if slowly, on 5 year old flagship phones.
I’m experimenting with “tool neuron” and “off grid”
Neat, cool to see these all-in-one native Android tools get so far.
This looks awesome! Can you share the real life use cases for this? What are you using it for?
[deleted by user]
Nice! You kinda answered my next question already with this web tool. I was curious if you are getting any useful results from the model itself without feeding it with good data first or relying on hardcoded tools. 4b model must be really dumb for anything even little complicated. I see you recommend to run two models - is it in parallel or the router can control backend and switch models?
[deleted by user]
[deleted by user]
“List the article’s concrete claims about permit status and turbine operations, each with support.”
- EPA position: these turbines require permits under the Clean Air Act.
Not quite though. The article cited EPA’s policy as per a former EPA enforcement staffer who was explicitly stating the EPA is not requiring that here and has made rules deferring to the state and local authorities. The guy was saying the EPA should be acting, but isn’t. The article was clever with it, but that’s all the more reason.
[deleted by user]
Kind of. It isn’t wrong, but it is a crucial omission that it’s interviewing a former EPA enforcement guy (i.e. not current) about current enforcement policy, (which is radically changing under Zeldin.) So the model’s interpretation on whether the state will hold to federal pressure becomes imprecise since it’s really this guy stating there’s actually a lack of federal pressure.
But it does rightfully note information is not in the article to answer, which is neat.
Because… for context not directly in the article, technically if EPA defers to the state, then Mississippi saying temporary permit exemption actually applies here satisfies the permit requirement, which Buckheit has to know. (Which directly explains the lack of federal pressure.) Citing the policy in January was a clever non-answer from the EPA. They’re actually saying state and federal policies are NOT in conflict.
Also, I’m not trying to dismiss any of this, more trying to provide an insight that might help with accuracy. I have a bit of knowledge on this specific subject, so I thought I’d note a point where I can measure an inaccuracy.
These kinda of articles can be really sneaky about claims and statements. Mostly minor and innocuous, but an LLM doesn’t know the difference. Like, this caught that Buckheit is talking about what should be happening under previous admins when he was involved, but that’s specifically not what the EPA is doing anymore, which the LLM appears to have missed in part. Which to me, that part was the primary purpose of the article.
[deleted by user]