Most AI alarmism benefits big tech itself. Either they want to create awe and thus demand for their products (see the recent dance around Mythos), or they want to create regulatory capture and increase the moat around AI.
Interestingly , we as a species already created an overreaching "cybernetic" system that controls our global society and that the individual is powerless against - it is not AI, but capitalism. Thus the current danger is not that AI becomes superintelligent and enslaves us, not that it makes a regime ultra-powerful, but that it increases economic inequality and concentrates economic power in the hands of even fewer people.
The irony is that new technology could allow us to live a life of abundance and leisure, but instead people are laid off, made unable to participate in the economy, etc.. The technology is (as so often) chafing against the bounds of society. I sometimes wonder what the superintelligent AI would say about this, and if it would come up with a completely novel political theory - "silly humans, why don't you just organise your affairs like this, you'd be much happier, and we could coexist much better: ...".
Beijing is a bad example, because all of China actually has Beijing time. It gets confusing in Xinjang, which is 2 hours in the "wrong" timezone. But that doesn't mean that people start work at 8:00 in complete darkness, they just start at 10:00 wall time.
I think the talk of daylight savings time is a distraction, in the end it is arbitrary what the clock says. As a society we need to negotiate when (in celestial time) we want to do certain activities. For example, there are a lot of studies that school starts to early (relative to sunrise and the average bed time of teenagers). But the school starting time has to be decided politically. And reduced working hours or later start times have to be negotiated by trade unions, politics etc.. That's a lot more messy than just shifting wall time.
Isn't the problem that role tags are just part of the input stream? So a specific word in the system prompt becomes the same token as the same word in the user prompt? A clean way to solve this would be to map system prompts to a distinct set of tokens from the ones in user prompts. This would require twice as many possible tokens, so it is probably not feasible. But maybe you could add "color" to the input stream by changing one input variable depending on whether the current token is part of the system prompt or not? Just like humans take different voices into account and not just the context of the text.
I have to say I am not very familiar with implementation details of language models, and maybe this is already done?
I don't get how so many people say pressing red is the right choice. Yes, if everyone presses red then nobody dies, but the same is true if everyone presses blue. But if almost everyone presses red, a lot of people die, and if almost everyone presses blue still nothing happens.
It would be funny if nobody dies but this was just a test if you are capable of large scale coordination - and everybody who presses red just looses their vote in society.
JavaScript got async in 2017, Python in 2015, and C# in 2012. Python actually had a version of it in 2008 with Twisted's @inlineCallbacks decorator - you used yield instead of await, but the semantics were basically the same.
I don't understand that point. Why do e-bikes become better or more safe when you have to rotate your legs? Its really frustrating and silly that I have to go through the motions (literally) of riding a bicycle if I want to get the priviledge of using a bike lane or going without a license plate. (At least that's the case here in Germany AFAIK).
They could go ahead and make "fast electric bikes" and "slow electric bikes" or something as categories and that would make sense - but hinging the decision on whether your legs or your wrist is turning is illogical. I think it is actually morally charged - like you have to put in the work if you want the privilege.
It's like the invention of the power loom, but for knowledge workers. Might be interesting to look at the history of industrialisation and the reactions to it.
I guess technically you are right, in that NAT doesn't prevent connections, it enables connections. But in the situation where you would have a NAT, behind a residential router, an outside host cannot connect to an arbitrary host on my internal network.
On a publicly routed PC, I can call `listen` and an outside host can connect to me.
On a PC behind a NAT - if I don't set up port forwarding - I can call `listen` and nobody from outside can connect to me.
So one could say, going from publicy routed to behind a NAT means that only allowed incoming connections are possible. Or am I missing something and you can really, from the outside, open a connection to a PC on a residential network which is behind a simple NAT (TCP server listening on that PC)?
Nooo... I don't want something to exist that can absolutely prove that a photo is real. This only serves to enforce social norms more rigidly. These include reasonable norms like against committing crimes or behaving abusingly but it also includes stupid norms like behaving uncool or doing something embarrasing. The problem is, where do you draw the line? I think if somebody does something stupid or even morally dubious there should always be a way of forgetting it.
That you can't believe everything you see in the age of AI is a feature, not a bug. We are so used to photographs being hard facts that we'll have to go through a hard transition, but we'll be fine afterwards, just as we were before the invention of photography. Our norms will adapt. And photographs will become mere heresay and illustration, but that's OK.
I think here the same dynamic is at play as with music/videos and DRM. Our society is so used to doing it the old way - selling physical records - that when new technology comes along, which allows free copying, we can't go where the technology leads us (because we don't know how to feed the artists, and because the record industry has too much power), so we invent a mechanism to turn back the wheel and make music into a scarce good again. Similar here: we can't ban Photoshop and AI, but we invent a technology to try to turn back time and make photos "evidence" again.
LLMs are just the speech center part of the brain, not a whole brain. It's like when you are speaking on autopilot, or reciting something by heart, it just comes out. There is no reflection or inner thought process. Now thinking models do actually do a bit of inner monologue before showing you the output so they have this problem to a much lesser degree.
> this just hasn't been the case for some time now
Which I find sad actually. The idea of C++ as a superset of C is really powerful, especially when mixing C and C++. A while ago I had a C project (firmware for a microcontroller) and wanted to bake the version and the compilation time into the firmware. I didn't find a way to do this in plain C, but in C++ you can initialize a global struct and it gets statically linked into the output. This didn't even use constexpr, just preprocessor trickery. Then it was just a matter of renaming the c file to cpp and recompiling. I guess you could also do that with C, but there are things like RAII or constexpr or consuming a C++ library that you can't do without.
> Cellebrite admits they can not hack GrapheneOS if users had installed updates since late 2022.
So, how do I know that GrapheneOS is not a honeypot for the really big fish?
At this point it seems if you really want to be safe, you have to add obscurity (in addition to conventional best practices). Like changing the pinout on your USB port so the exploit device can't connect.
Or 3) there are illegal immigrants and ICE is deporting them according to the law, BUT some people think this is unjust and want to do something against it. The democratic process to change laws is too slow or doesn't work properly, or there is no majority to change the law.
Remember there is a difference between legal and legitimate. You don't have to do something just because it is the law (well, you could define "have to" to mean what the law says, but then it becomes pretty circular).
Historically, often behavior changes before the applicable laws change. Think about the acceptance of gay relationships, or the use of cannabis. If people don't sometimes break the law, society can't evolve. That doesn't mean the rule of law has to break down. I think the rule of law is very important and would uphold it in most cases, but there are certain cases where conscience might order one to break or circumvent a law.
I think users applies to end-users here. So you must not run the software as a service (either paid or for free) for other users. You are free to use it yourself.
Crucially, I think what is banned to offer accounts. Offering turnkey-hosting is probably banned in spirit, but the person offering the turnkey-hosting is not in violation, rather the person booking the turnkey hosting and offering the accounts on the instance to third parties is in violation.
I think the wording is originally against somebody like Amazon hosting e.g. database instances for other people to use, and then giving you an account in that database. It's still OK to rent a VM from them and use the package manager to install it.
In any way, it is really confusing, in a way a license should not be. And I don't really understand why someone builds a blog platform, which is not monetized, open sources it, but doesn't want other people to host it. If I open source my stuff, I want people to use it. If I want to share the code but don't want people to use it I'd just put it somewhere it with no license at all (all rights reserved).
So, as there are a couple of docks coming out that work with Switch 2 and have apparently reverse engineered the protocol... I wonder if some company could make a small dongle that just sits between the switch and my monitor, or my USB-C docking station, and fixes the communication.
For a DIY solution, protocol wise it doesn't seem too complicated, but electronically USB-C or HDMI is out of reach for most hobbyists. And I assume most USB-C interface chips you can get aren't programmable to the degree neccessary...
Already in his first example, where he says he doesn't use range-based for in order to help the compiler and get a charitable result, he doesn't get the point, I think. You write code in a certain way in order to be able to use abstractions like range-based for, or functional style. If you are hand-unrolling the loop, or using a switch statement instead of polymorphism, you loose the ability to use that abstraction.
Esentially the whole point of object orientation is to enable polymorphism without having big switch statements at each call site. (That, and encapsulation, and nice method call syntax.) When people dislike object orientation, it's often because they don't get or at least don't like polymorphism.
Most people, most of the time, don't have to think about stuff like cache coherency. It is way more important to think about algorithmic complexity, and correctness. And then, if you find your code is too slow, and after profiling, you can think about inlining stuff or using structs-of-arrays instead of arrays-of-structs and so on.
Hah, I knew somebody was going to post this and almost added a disclaimer.
When I say Linux, I'm talking about Linux distributions. Not the bare kernel, not embedded Linux.
If I choose to use Linux over macOS or Windows, the #1 reason is that it gives me greater choice. On the desktop, to choose different desktop environments, to customize it to a greater extent than what is possible on other platforms. (That even applies to some extent to the server, I can choose from a greater selection of alternative services and am more flexible than in the Windows Server world, where it is more often a IIS, MSSQL, .NET stack.)
If I don't value choice, than frankly there is very little to make me choose Linux over whatever is preinstalled on my Laptop. I used to have fun tinkering with my Linux installation and developing my own tools and workflows etc., but now that I'm older and don't have so much disposable time I prefer something that is good enough out of the box. I'm sure many people can relate.
If the greater Linux community still embraced "Linux is about choice", and I could still run stuff in the "mix and match" spirit of ca. 2009, but with a modern kernel and modern apps, then I would immediately switch to desktop Linux. But you can't choose your window decorations, themes, desktop panels independently anymore and get a somewhat matching look and feel. It's only Gnome island, KDE/Plasma island, and hacker-minimalist island.
About removing support for what they call split-usr and unmerged-usr: Why does a init system and daemon manager even need suppport for a certain directory layout, shouldn't it be agnostic? Having a separate usr-space saved my bacon in the past a couple of times.
The thing I dislike most about Systemd is that it leads to homogenisation, where to me, running Linux is about choice.
It depends. I think one or two dedicated engineers could spend some time and make a huge improvement.
I worked on an embedded system with an Allwinner chipset. We tried to reduce power consumption, not to save battery since it was a cabled system, but to reduce heat. It turns out nobody, not Allwinner who provided the BSP, not the board designer, nor the final customer who developed the application software cared to optimize the OS much. The CPU had four cores, but only one was occupied most of the time. But all cores were at 100% frequency. Configurable voltages were also all on the upper edge. I enabled frequency scaling, switched to the correct scheduler, and now the board was much cooler and ran with more than twice the performance.
I'm always surprized how many low-hanging fruit there are in these kind of systems.
I'm not a fan of YAML either, but I think you should not generate YAML files if you can avoid it. All YAML you encounter should be hand-written, so this problem should not occur.
I read "YAML is a superset of JSON" not as a logical statement, but as instructions to humans writing YAML. If you know JSON, you can use that syntax to write YAML. Just like, if you know JavaScript or Python (or to some extent PHP) object syntax, you can write JSON.
If you get a parse error, no biggie, you Alt+Tab to the editor where you are editing the config file and correct it. It is not like you are serving this over the net to some other program.
Interestingly , we as a species already created an overreaching "cybernetic" system that controls our global society and that the individual is powerless against - it is not AI, but capitalism. Thus the current danger is not that AI becomes superintelligent and enslaves us, not that it makes a regime ultra-powerful, but that it increases economic inequality and concentrates economic power in the hands of even fewer people.
The irony is that new technology could allow us to live a life of abundance and leisure, but instead people are laid off, made unable to participate in the economy, etc.. The technology is (as so often) chafing against the bounds of society. I sometimes wonder what the superintelligent AI would say about this, and if it would come up with a completely novel political theory - "silly humans, why don't you just organise your affairs like this, you'd be much happier, and we could coexist much better: ...".