Chris2048

The topic of this sub-thread is whether a "land value tax would fix rich people from parking money in real estate".

You have the option to pass on such a tax burden, as do any other home/land-owner(s), which is relevant to the conversation.

What point are you making relevant to that?

Who is "they" in this argument?

Isn't this already handled by inflation?

You call it non-reproduceable, but money is literally created.

Potentially anyone you pass it on to, such as a tenant.

> you get no more from me

You're the one who started this tangent..

Not sure if I can trust this blog, looking at another article linked from that one:

    Palestine Action was a legal organisation.
    Nearly a year later, the government of Keir Starmer declared it a
    terrorist group – the first time in British history that a non-violent
    direct action organisation has been proscribed.

-- https://substack.com/home/post/p-184498793

AFAIK, they rammed their van through a front shutter, without knowing who might be on the other side; and as police tried to arrest them, one of them hit a female police officer in the back/spine with a sledgehammer.

Doesn't sound non-violent to me..

> Astral people are already in the comments making pro AI coding statements.

I can't see any other comment on this post mentioning AI, did you just make this up?

In that case, government still doesn't have access; they have to be granted it, even if there is a penalty for non-compliance.

Just a tangent, but coffee ordering in Europe can be difficult for me sometimes, coming from UK/Ireland; most people here order a "latte", but I don't think it really exists in many places (at least in the same proportions, 1 or 2 shots in 180ml to 250ml steamed milk), even though their are similarly named item e.g. in Spain, Portugal & Italy.

Will the new (summed) A, e and b be the same size as the originals, and is m2 + m2 still a 512-dimensional bit vector?

I though (when I tried to understand it) that some part of the HE inflates some component of the result?

Energy efficient, yes, but when you want to keep a query/data private it's maybe worth the extra $ KW. Chicken pie recipes and google AI-search can still go though the datacentres.

As an aside: The computation might also not be the same e.g. ever-changing hidden pre-prompts, security/safety checks blocking or degrading responses, unavoidable verbosity to simple questions, watermarking, collection of prompt data to build user profiles for the purpose of advertising - and we haven't even seen in-response adverts, or sponsor-biased responses yet, but no doubt it's coming.

If you can trust the app/platform developers to send encrypted anonymised personal data, then how can you trust them to properly use FHE personal data?

> "we literally cannot read your period data."

If the purpose is aggregated data for statistic, then surely the only per-user data they need centrally can already be aggregated (to some degree) on the device, e.g. send back only statistical-distribution variables of the personal data, for distributions over the 3-4 months? And at some point, does the service need to keep collecting data, once the model is good enough (at predicting ovulation etc)?

Another concern would be: If they are building a model, using user data, why should they own the model and thus monetise it (i.e. sell it back to its users) when users get no compensation for supplying that data in the first place.

A flow-tracking app should just stick to that, and purchase the model (for a fee) from a third party. The third party should concern itself with how to get the data without being able to leverage its position as a flow-app maintainer to trick or mislead the majority of its users into giving them free data.

Why don't you say what they are wrong about then?

Isn't that someone else's problem anyway? Someone else's model trained on your outputs is still someone else's model.

> we cannot monitor how these distilled models are used or prevent misuse

which is fine since they are none of your (their) business..

I think the only possible concern is using their models name - making it clear it's a new model merely trained in another one should fix that.

The first party are described as "office people", I'm not sure it's the same party as the 2nd.

You can always build/compile your own software, having the local 'key' is the ability to do so. I'm not sure what else is implied - how will an external service / website enforce this?

Are you confusing whatever you mean by 'null transform' with an identity function?

The project isn't serious, why should I be?

What does "that README is for bots" mean? Are you implying it is some kind of special language written by and correctly understood by bots/LLMs, but otherwise semantically coherent?

And the comment text is what they typed into the text box. So just show us the same - the prompt.

Then.. why would you link to the readme if you know it's slop? What's the point of a slop README?

> In the context of remote attestation, I think this is also even dangerous / evil.

It's cool until it becomes enforced and we no longer hold the keys to our own hardware; bwim the ability to determine which key signers are to be trusted. But I don't think standing in the way of attestation tech is a fruitful tactic - much better to fight for hardware/key control.

TBH llm generated text is usually better than this..

Looking at the Debian example: https://in-toto.io/docs/examples/debian/

Does Debian already provide signature on .deb files (that is, provide a manifest of their hashes and and sign each)? If so, you could potentially d/l the files from any source/mirror?

Whenever I put a whitepaper in notebooklm and ask it to create a presentation etc explaining the main points, it illustrates the obvious, easy to understand things in the brief, and misses (or oversimplifies) most of the hard technical parts..

Does Ireland have the cheapest cleanest power?

> prompts such as “Hey” or “commit” sometimes triggered 30+ tool calls

I read that this is because it wastes time looking through past conversations and other context to figure one what you might want it to do - a less ambiguous prompt would be better.

> That kind of support is what users expect.

Then they should also expect enshittification and rug-pulls when it's realised where motivation for that support comes from.

Must have hit some nerves.

What's with this response in the Twitter thread??:

"This ain't what a C&D looks like. Implies you don't actually have a leg to stand on. Upload a copy of your official legal demand (from a lawyer) or I'll forever see your company as one who attempts to bully the competition in public"

-- https://xcancel.com/jacobhartmannx/status/207012600834729596...

Is this just trolling?!