CyrsBel

I have definitely contradicted Elon Musk on my X profile (@cyrsbel) quite a lot. I have never once lost my blue checkmark, though, so I believe he is well-intentioned and a good person who is trying to do the right thing. (I am also subscribed to him and having that sub and the blue checkmark means he has payment details already so I'm not worried about doxxing via CFPB data.) However, you raise a legitimate security risk and concern. It is not feasible to trust a single person with this much power and access. Furthermore, regardless of how much I or anyone else love Elon Musk...he has said things that didn't happen multiple times and too much is riding on his claims about what can or will happen.

So yeah, I don't trust him. Ever since he reneged on interns, I noticed that...he has a tendency to think about things as if they're entirely meat and to worship the false god Scarcity. He's been gargling Ron Paul's gold coins so much that he completely fails to comprehend basic nation state financing and why deficits are manageable and our debt is also manageable given our $160T+ net worth and climbing...

You are correct. And the nonchalant way in which the leaders who are supposed to oversee this thing are treating it is appalling. It will have consequences during mid-terms and beyond. It is clear that some people believe elected office to mean that they are then given authority and rights with which to increase in...being voyeurs rather than visionaries???

Yes. Even if DOGE is operating without any ill intent, and I don't think they have ill intent, the possibility of errors alone is massive and they need to slow down.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/02/17/trum...

CAT should audit DOGE.

They succeeded, I'm not about to argue with Elon Musk's business muscle or American tech muscle lol. You can if you wanna! But he succeeded in a way that Chevy failed when they had a huge head start with the ev1. With less money. That's amazing and maybe plug-in hybrids matter or maybe they don't. He kept stating even in really early interviews what the goal is and they made it - massive charging network and now everyone will have standard connectors to it. And most of it is solar powered.

Come on man.

This is what their stated mission has been - to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport. They’ve been selling cars for a long time already.

UML is really powerful but definitely could be more simplified to just be basic charts. The problem is that sometimes you need to see the full complexity to be able to start simplifying systems. The real issue involving a decades-old process that gets in the way isn't actually UML though it appears at first to fit that description. It's actually scrum. Scrum-based methodologies on how to deliver value to the business. Scrum eventually forces engineers to make trade-offs like how thorough their UML and regular flowcharts can be which is not a scalable way to build quality products. The charts should be precisely as complex as is needed to accomplish the business objective and ensure that the business is always able to be in the best starting position possible to continue working on a piece of code or a system with just that documentation as the starting point. Sometimes this does mean that a demo may be just a bunch of UML or simpler flowcharts that have more breadth instead of user functionality.

UML makes sure that product functionality knowledge can be more easily restored or understood from an engineering mindset. It encodes a lot of information into the format and simpler options exist too. But I have to say once again that you almost got it right as to which decades-old development methodology is pretty deprecated despite still being in fashion - it's not at the diagramming layer, it's at the project management layer.

Those aren't ironic examples though, the evidence shows that it really is a matter in some of those cases of a mindset switch. And note that it is listed as a starting step. One must continue the roadmap to get to the end.

Of course that for the final possibility of "you're about to go to heaven" there's nothing that can be said or done besides making peace with God, I mean what else could anyone say to that? That one is definitely an unfair one because it's at the very limit where in that case you're definitely right, can't do anything about that one. (Although even then I'll note that one King Hezekiah was it? Who requested more time on Earth and it was granted to him after God saw his many earnest tears.)

Outperforms ChatGPT and GPT-4 in generating api calls? Or in every type of querying? It's exciting that this is open, looking forward to trying all of this from end to end!

We should not be so dependent on one person that if they are compromised because of deepfakes everything collapses. People need to be taught to have more patience and to question questionable things like that. Give the benefit of the doubt.

And realize that penalizing regular people's access to something good or necessary because of bad actors won't hurt the bad actors. Nothing in this legislation provides teeth against what you're describing. There are also other strategies that explicitly do not involve banning access.

Rather, encourage and leverage access. When everyone has deepfaking capabilities just because of fun filters in snapchat, it's encoded into the social contract from a young age not to abuse that except in jest. There are paper and log trails all over the place when these services run. A deepfake being created means a deepfake is detectable.

I don't want some account on LinkedIn overlaying "debunked" on a screenshot. I don't want a LinkedIn post. I want the NY Times to retract their paper if they are wrong, and for the highest European authorities to directly address the issue with truthfulness backed by citations to the legal code they are putting forth for voting. There must be no questions at all as to what is being voted on, when, and why.

Yes, product owners will always be needed. It's a full-stack skill set in itself to be a product owner (biz ops is a real thing, project management, product discovery, business management, finance, risk, security). So many areas that if a dev wanted to do those things...they'd have to learn how to be a product owner. It's a lot and it's hard.

This automation will help product owners be more powerful and effective. It will also unblock devs by streamlining live comms so that they're either desirable communications or streamlined into automation, freeing up more physical time for development, discussions with business, discussions with each other, or just shaving off half a Friday of meetings and moving to a 4-4.5 day work-week in most shops.

Indeed. But requiring data, source code, and weights on papers submitted for peer review would solve a lot of this. As well as making data sets and data collection processes reproducible and open such that anyone can verify it end to end. LLMs can be open and set up such that they curate this for people too. You know how AWS has a status page for availability? We could have status pages for LLM data training set integrity.

It will be way more manageable and truthful this way than in the existing way where some European bureaucracy (disclaimer: I am European) sits in front of my and your access to GPT-4 or an LLM running on our boxes directly.

> eliminate the need for having a scrum master

yes

> and/or product manager?

product managers will always be needed

Create forums and message boards again. Give them topicality. Support RSS and open data transfer protocols. Manually append these places to the Google and Brave indexes.

Reality is just reality. In some things, it may reflect that liberals are right. In other things, it may reflect that conservatives are right. But you're right that the training data is the key and that some overlord in a dark closet turning the dials is becoming less and less of a possibility. This is why the European bureaucrats want to "regulate" (aka ban) open AI. They're just afraid that reality doesn't have as much of a bias that favors them as they thought lol.

> Depressed? Just be cheerful.

Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy exists and is known to be a first step towards recovery.

> Alcoholic? Just quit drinking.

Yes. See Albert Bandura in 2007 in study on Addictive Behaviors. Or after that, I was just reading this:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3179802/

> Your city is breaking down? Just move elsewhere.

Yes, or fix it. Or don't contribute to the break down, especially not by speaking negative or toxic things when one can otherwise just be quiet and let the people fixing things fix things.

> Kids keep you up at night? Just give them away.

Discipline them, or figure out bed-time strategy? Can't help on this one tbh since I don't have kids of my own.

> Terminal illness? Just get well.

This just comes across as a last-ditch effort to try to prove me wrong lol

The proprietary offering does come with moderation built-in to some extent but that is not the same thing as saying that it will lie. An open GPT model will just focus on what the training data informs it of, and as the training data improves its description of how the world works will become more precise. You can ask ChatGPT for sources and to show work. Will it hallucinate from time to time? If the data is incomplete or there are gaps in information flowing to ChatGPT, yes. That is nowhere near the same thing as straight up being told the wrong information by human beings knowingly.

The reason this is relevant is because the reply up above said we don't need LLMs or GPT-4 for what I mentioned about rapid learning sans bloated bureauracy and lying bureacrats. This is way more common and likely in the existing world, particularly since humans have incentives to lie and are protected by the false light of a bureaucracy that is more interested in its own preservation instead of allowing itself to be obviated by new tech.

You can train a model to have pre-baked responses to something but if you don't add those rules, it will just repeat the extent of what the training data tells it and whatever inferences and deductions it can reason about on top of that.

This is relevant because the parent comment said you can already learn anything online and I was pointing out the way in which that isn't actually true of the regular internet in the same way that it is true of an LLM or GPT-4.

Indeed. This is why data needs to be open, and the pipelines locally reproducible. All papers must include their data and training code and weights.

Wrong. I'm happy to talk about this on the record if desired.

Yes but what about people who don't know about mullvad? Is it very accessible, open, cheap to run, secure, and available without EU authorities presuming that you are guilty just because you love drinking from the chalice of knowledge that is GPT-4 or a more-local LLM?

Not the same. With LLMs you can learn way faster and there's no agenda or lying, for the most part. It may repeat incorrect training data but it won't actually lie to you or sprinkle in agendas.

Whereas with learning online, there's still a bunch of ad revenue, a bunch of noise, a bunch of needless pontification from people who don't teach well but have the authority because of slow bureaucracy.

LLMs get rid of that really quickly. That is why they want to put it back in the box, but it's too late. This software must be open source and disseminated everywhere immediately, it's a huge boost for the species. There can be guard rails of course, but what is being proposed here by the EU is not guard rails. It is mind control.

> In a bold stroke, the EU’s amended AI Act would ban American companies such as OpenAI, Amazon, Google, and IBM from providing API access to generative AI models. The amended act, voted out of committee on Thursday, would sanction American open-source developers and software distributors, such as GitHub, if unlicensed generative models became available in Europe. While the act includes open source exceptions for traditional machine learning models, it expressly forbids safe-harbor provisions for open source generative systems.

This is evil. The politicians who worked on this need to be chastised then fired. They're trying to formulate it as being about American IP but it's actually just because they're afraid they won't be able to lie and manipulate and brainwash people anymore if people can just learn any subject and test themselves on any subject via open LLMs that get better over time.

This isn't regulating AI. It's an attempt to ban it except in cases where they are the gatekeepers to the fire. They don't want LLMs to obviate slow bureaucracy and lying.

They are easier to achieve than before. All of them. Just do it.

Work pressure? Work less and push back if you need to, there's an abundance of easy jobs. Processed foods? Eat whole foods. Screen time? Use less screen. Borked dating scene? Not at all, work on yourself. Abundance of crap jobs? That means easy to get 1 or 2 of them and just coast a bit while working on self.

People complain too much.

I am skeptical that this is about regulating AI for safety rather than regulating AI to try to be the gatekeepers of the value AI brings to people who love drinking from the chalice of knowledge.

I believe they introduced a sort of rate limiting where the expectation will be that the user is doing more thinking and due diligence and asking more precise questions, so that they're not just attempting to get a lot of hand holding with very broad prompts when they can otherwise think about what code they're being given back from more specific and structured questioning. This is useful because it will preserve the value proposition of AI while avoiding a machine just being milked for code by people who want to just throw code at the wall and see what sticks. Milking a model for code is fun in some ways but it won't scale from a cost-to-run point of view, and it also will incentivize no longer thinking deeply and critically about what is being built.

If you are incorporating machine models into your development process very heavily, make sure you're still building deep knowledge and deep context of your codebase. Otherwise you'll atrophy in that department because you falsely believe the machine maintains the context for you.

That isn't feasible right now because the cost of maintaining huge context per user to enable milking rather than enhanced-thinking is too high.

Also consider that we don't want to enable milking. People who have no idea what they're doing will just throw a lot of code at the wall and then when there's a huge mess they'll be asking engineers to fix it. We need to be careful with who has this kind of access on our teams in general. Someone who is non-technical should not be given a firecracker before they've ever even just turned on a microwave or a stove.

This gets countered by running one (or more) of those same amazing autonomous agents locally for your own defense. Everyone's machine is about to get much more intelligent.