My mistake for calling it "copy", should have said fork maybe (?)
They are awful close to still require a reference to the original project imo. They are achieving the same output (identify birds and display them in a frame display all hosted in a raspberry pi) with that twist to how to generate the art.
Author here: I'll take any feedback and critisism. I haven't based any of my work directly on his project, but will be referencing it as a similar one in the readme, as well as e.g. https://github.com/veteranbv/inky-bird-frame.
From the link: "Half the point of this project is showing off some amazing public-domain natural-history illustrations. Over 800 cut-outs covering more than 400 species, every one taken from a real plate and hand-curated for this project (no art is AI-generated, though some has been retouched with AI)."
Idk what "retouched with AI" means. Does it mean they used a segmentation model to cut out the shapes, or were they shoved through an imagegen and completely recreated?
I agree I would expect a reference. Another difference between this an AvianVisitors is the image sources. AvianVisitors is all AI generated with a consistent prompt, but OP's is using chiefly public domain images with retouching by AI as needed.
I understand OP is continuing the work and improving it as he sees fit, but that in my mind is a fork and should aknowledge the initial work that sparked it.
Maybe i'm wrong tho and this is completely parallel work! Waiting for OPs reply
Hi, yeah I'm not basing any of my coding or feature-work on that project. My biggest source of inspiration is actually just a paper poster I have hanging on my wall https://www.axelthorenfeldt.com/news/wwf-verdens-naturfonds-.... I wanted to make a version of that, showing the actual birds in my garden.
A fork implies that it builds upon code from another repository. I wouldn't use the word fork to mean "inspired by". I think it takes away from the effort that the author has put in. Anyone can create a fork of a project with the click of a button.
Original author here. Fair point, this project was one of my inspirations, but I chose to take a different approach. This uses public domain natural history art and builds on top of BirdNET-Go which is a popular way of self-hosting bird-detections. (This is really a BirdNET-Go companion, as it cannot run without).
That's fair, and I totally get wanting to give it your own spin.
I still think it would be good to acknowledge the original project that sparked the idea, especially now that you've mentioned it was one of the inspirations.
Definitely keep going with yours and evolve it further. That's how good projects grow. But for a healthy open source community, I think we should make a point of crediting the people whose work inspires us. Otherwise, over time, it can discourage people from sharing their projects publicly in the first place.
Contrary to the Great Man version of how we mostly talk about history, scientific discoveries, technological breakthroughs and such have historically often occurred multiple times in multiple places often in close proximity time-wise but otherwise completely unrelated to each other. This of course makes sense if you consider that history seems to be primarily driven by material conditions (e.g. steam engines were known to Ancient Greece but their usefulness for industry simply hadn't occurred to them because they lacked the prerequisites to make them useful and neither economic efficiency nor access to cheap labor were significant enough concerns - plus there was no patent system of course).
I'll leave it up to you to decide whether one should expect the demographic of this website to be especially invested in the Great Man narrative but trying to convince them that two people can independently have similar-sounding ideas involving similar-but-different technology is probably an uphill battle. Just be glad you're not composing music for a living because there's literally an entire industry built around the idea that it's impossible for two people to come up with similar melodies without knowingly or unknowingly copying eachother and that it's very important that one of them (or rather the company they had to sign a deal with in order to make any money off their music at all) 100% owns that exact melody and should be paid by anyone who wants to use it.
Next time you have an idea you should just file a patent tbh - the insistence on prior art invalidating the work seems to be quite similar but at least if you're granted a patent you can shake down "copycats" for money.
> Contrary to the Great Man version of how we mostly talk about history, scientific discoveries, technological breakthroughs and such have historically often occurred multiple times in multiple places often in close proximity time-wise but otherwise completely unrelated to each other.
My favourite example of this is calculus, followed closely by heavier-than-air flight.
I think there is ample evidence that the Wright brothers were (unlike many other inventors) uniquely suited to solving the problem of heavier-than-air flight, as they solved several open problems that nobody was making progress on (the main ones being control authority, propeller designs, the scientific basis for wing designs, and the ability to test designs and practice without dying) -- they even discovered and solved previously-unknown problems (such as adverse yaw, something their contemporaries should've independently discovered if they were on the right track).
A full rundown would be too long but [1] is a pretty good video going through the history of flight and how most of the other candidates for "first flyers" people bring up don't count and how it's difficult to argue that any of their contemporaries were even close to the Wrights.
See original opus 4.6 sitting at 16% hallucination and the retest on 12th of april at 33%
They definitely must be doing some quantization or optimization to meet demand, otherwise why would model performance degrade this much? It's been crazy for me personally
I'm the last person to defend any of these companies, but it's not a retest. The set of tasks is clearly different and results for the original tasks are nearly identical. It differs on one task where it previously had fabrications = 0 and now it's 1, which dropped the score from 100% to 86%
Combining multiple tests on the same leaderboard like this is nonsense, there should be a separate leaderbaord for the new tasks where every model is tested again.
Putting it on the original leaderboard as "Opus 4.6 (April 12)" is so obviously inappropriate that it smells like deception. You could say that the leaderboard is hallucinated.
Long term claude code user here. Is the first time i've had to setup a hook to codex to review claude output.
Is hallucinating like never before
Is missing key concepts/instructions in context like never before
Is writing bad code that will "pass test" much more. Before it use to try be critic and do good code, now it will try to hack test and bypass intructions for a green pass.
This has changed since Sam Altman started buying up all the chip supply, raising prices on memory, storage, and GPUs for everyone, but it used to be the case that you could build a PC that was both cheaper and faster than a Mac for LLM inference, with roughly equal performance per watt.
You would use multiple *90-series GPUs, throttled down in terms of power. Depending on the GPU, the sweet spot is between 225-350W, where for LLM workloads you only lose 5-10% of performance for a ~50% drop in power consumption.
Combined with a workstation (Xeon/Epyc) CPU with lots of PCIe, you can support 6-7 such GPUs (or more, depending on available power). This will blow away the fastest Mac studio, at a comparable performance per watt.
Again, a lot of this has changed, since GPUs and memory are so much more expensive now.
Macs are great for a simpler all in one box with high memory bandwidth and middling-to-decent GPU performance, but they are (or were) absolutely not "untouchable."
I think OP’s point was that it would do more than 2-3x the workload, thus them stating “blow it out of the water” and specifying “performance-per-watt”.
Untouchable my ass. You get a PC that has an ssd glued to the motherboard so if you run write intensive workloads and that thing wears out replacing it will have significant cost. Then there’s no PCie slot to get any decent network card if you want to work more than one of them in unison, you’re stuck with that stupid thunderbolt 5 while Infiniband gives x10 network speeds. As for memory bandwidth, it’s fast compared to CPUs but any enterprise GPU dwarfs it significantly. The unified RAM is the only interesting angle.
Apple could have taken a chunk of the enterprise market now with that AI craze if they had made an upgradable and expandable server edition based on their silicon. But no, everything has to be bolt down and restricted.
> Nvidia's recent GPUs are more power-efficient than Apple Silicon in raster, training and inference workloads.
I think you can do better than the proverbial Apples and Oranges comparison.
In terms of total system, "box on desk", Apple is likely to remain the performance per watt leader compared to random PC workstations with whatever GPUs you put inside.
> The german constitution restricts drafting to men[0] and would have to be changed before such a law could even be considered.
Just to add, the current government does not have the necessary majority to make such a change. Therefore making a law which includes drafting women is legally impossible without opposition collaboration.
The way to solve that is to introduce a different form of service to the state along side with military service so that the choice in practice become the same.
Is there anything in the constitution that forbids the government from requiring citizens to perform some kind of service to the government?
So there are some jobs that only a biological male can do, that a biological female is not qualified to do? If we made a list, which jobs do you think might be on it?
Being firefighters, yes to some extent, because males are more likely to have acquired the physical strength needed to lift people out of burning buildings. But there are many female firefighters who excel in the profession too.
There is nothing about males that make them more suited to be doctors. We also can see that in the demographics in some countries (e.g. the UK), there is a roughly equal balance of female doctors to male doctors.
Having mathematical ability is linked to intelligence, not sex.
Testosterone is inextricably linked to mathematical and spatial reasoning in the human brain. You are incorrect in your assertion that men do not inherently make better doctors and mathematicians. It is factually accurate to state that they do.
Cheers and thank you! I'll reshare an earlier comment that I think answers your question - let me know:
Thanks so much for the kind words - its 100% o3-mini for clustering. I have zero editorial input as to what constitutes a cluster, what's "top" news, etc.
The one subtlety is setting up the LLM to understand whether a new story belongs in an existing cluster, or with > 1 neighbors, constitutes a new cluster. The challenge there is scoping the clustering window (hours of stories for consideration) and topic breadth to avoid creating Katamari-super-clusters that just end up with every story associated to them.
At this point I seem to have found a sweet spot re: the hours window, the frequency of processing, and the design of the prompt such that its working consistently.
Very few false positives in terms of spurious clusters being created, or potential clusters being missed.
Very interesting, how do you do that? Do you limit yourself what you feed or via custom instructions? I had a similar case so would love how you are doing the prompting here.
In my case we went with embeddings and clustering to find close papers to each other because llm were allucinating.
https://github.com/Twarner491/AvianVisitors
https://theodore.net/projects/AvianVisitors/
Or maybe im missing to see is the same author? It went viral a few months ago
reply