A top scientist has proposed a new way to reconcile the two different ways that our clocks keep time. Meet — wait for it — the leap minute. From a report: Later this month, delegations from around the world will head to a conference in Dubai to discuss international treaties involving radio frequencies, satellite coordination and other tricky technical issues. These include the nagging problem of the clocks. For 50 years, the international community has carefully and precariously balanced two different ways of keeping time. One method, based on Earth’s rotation, is as old as human timekeeping itself, an ancient and common-sense reliance on the position of the sun and stars. The other, more precise method coaxes a steady, reliable frequency from the changing state of cesium atoms and provides essential regularity for the digital devices that dominate our lives.

The trouble is that the times on these clocks diverge. The astronomical time, called Universal Time, or UT1, has tended to fall a few clicks behind the atomic one, called International Atomic Time, or TAI. So every few years since 1972, the two times have been synced by the insertion of leap seconds — pausing the atomic clocks briefly to let the astronomic one catch up. This creates UTC, Universal Coordinated Time. But it’s hard to forecast precisely when the leap second will be required, and this has created an intensifying headache for technology companies, countries and the world’s timekeepers.

“Having to deal with leap seconds drives me crazy,” said Judah Levine, head of the Network Synchronization Project in the Time and Frequency Division at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Boulder, Colo., where he is a leading thinker on coordinating the world’s clocks. He is constantly badgered for updates and better solutions, he said: “I get a bazillion emails.” On the eve of the next international discussion, Dr. Levine has written a paper that proposes a new solution: the leap minute. The idea is to sync the clocks less frequently, perhaps every half-century, essentially letting atomic time diverge from cosmos-based time for 60 seconds or even a tad longer, and basically forgetting about it in the meantime.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Source: Slashdot – A Giant Leap for the Leap Second

Some companies that pay for OpenAI’s artificial intelligence have been looking to cut costs with free, open-source alternatives. But these AI customers are realizing that oftentimes open-source tech can actually be more expensive than buying from OpenAI. The Information: Take Andreas Homer and Ebby Amir, co-founders of Cypher, an app that helps people create virtual versions of themselves in the form of a chatbot. Industry excitement this summer about the release of Llama 2, an open-source large language model from Meta Platforms, prompted the duo to test it for their app, leading to a $1,200 bill in August from Google Cloud, Cypher’s cloud provider. Then they tried using GPT-3.5 Turbo, an OpenAI model that underpins services such as ChatGPT, and were surprised to see that it cost around $5 per month to handle the same amount of work.

Baseten, a startup that helps developers use open-source LLMs, says its customers report that using Llama 2 out of the box costs 50% to 100% more than for OpenAI’s GPT-3.5 Turbo. The open-source option is cheaper only for companies that want to customize an LLM by training it on their data; in that case, a customized Llama 2 model costs about one-fourth as much as a customized GPT-3.5 Turbo model, Baseten found. Baseten also found that OpenAI’s most advanced model, GPT-4, is about 15 times more expensive than Llama 2, but typically it’s only needed for the most advanced generative AI tasks like code generation rather than the ones most large enterprises want to incorporate.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Source: Slashdot – Meta’s Free AI Isn’t Cheap To Use, Companies Say