LudwigNagasena

It’s obvious that such boneheaded methods don’t work. So what’s next? First, we need to deal with basic word substitution, which seems theoretically feasible. Then we need to deal with encodings such as Caesar cipher, replacing spaces with zero-width spaces, Base64, etc. Your account will be flagged and reported for outputting obfuscated text. What’s next after that? Ooops, you output too many vim commands instead of outputting text directly, your account is flagged and reported to Europol. You think you can bypass that with Deepseek? No, it will be banned alongside VPN.

What does a diagnosis have to do with any of that? How is that a whole other bag worms, that’s exactly the topic at hand.

Looks like a sale-leaseback. Similar in spirit to an asset-backed loan.

In Bayesian statistics that’s called credence. Weird that they felt the need to invent a new term.

It’s hard to meaningfully compare prices across countries due to differences in tax regimes.

Russia recently moved to its own SSL certificates due to sanctions. Now you cannot use a bank without allowing the government to MITM you.

That example doesn't use any TUI.

> Posts like his Calling someone a "nazi" is a permission slip for violence is simply untrue no matter who you are or where you live.

It is simply true. Lots of people think it’s okay to punch nazis. There was a whole public debate about that around 7 years ago when a famous nazi got punched. The phrase “punch a nazi” got quite popular after that.

It’s Ruby on Rails in the world of distros. If you find other distros tasteless and unpolished, you may want to try Omarchy. At least that’s how I see it (I find most Linux distros and development frameworks tasteless and unpolished).

I don't see much value in knowing that dependent types can be used to encode logical quantifiers or similar stuff in applied programming. Maybe there is actual value that it creates after you grok those concepts (beyond the general applicability of any concept or metaphor in your thinking), but I don't see it.

"Functional programming" in applied programming usually just means using less mutable state and using stuff like `map` and `reduce` to make semantics of code more predictable and move the burden of optimizing actual implicit mess it creates to compiler/interpreter.

> I feel like no serious work with this ambition

What ambition? The book is an applied introduction for people who aren’t even familiar with what ∃ means. It’s 200 pages, which is at best comparable to a semester-long course.

Looks like a novelty item made with the purpose of testing their hardware production capabilities before producing a real product.

Also, translated pages transform newlines into \n.

That's just cruft unless there is a benchmark demonstrating it's actually better than just asking an agent to write docs and/or using one of the thousands of document-writing skills like Anthropic's doc-coauthoring.

Moving camera completely distorts the video both on my Mac and iPhone.

Hard to imagine anything worse than LaTeX for web layout. Imagine resizing a page and waiting for the re-compilation of the whole page.

The age verification that doesn't have to be a nightmare dystopia of 24/7 fine-grained tracking and recording is called parental controls and it already exists in most systems. It doesn't require any proof of ID, internet connection, complex distributed systems, and so on. And it has near 100% success rate.

> Sure, it won't hold up against collusion between website and government, but nothing would.

Right, so it's just privacy theatre.

Does really do a great job? It just says there are no “instances”, it doesn’t explain how the architecture circumvents all the troubles that it leads to such as auth, sync, discovery, etc.

I remember around 2018 Tesla was actually criticised for excessive automation because it purportedly was slower and more expensive than manual work.

I thought I have clearly explained that I completely disagree with the claim and its entire framing. Not sure what you mean by conclusion that I supposedly agree with.

> No, the point is that for the purposes of this discussion it is irrelevant when the arguments were first made.

How is that irrelevant if the whole statement is literally about when the arguments were first made and supposedly disproven?

> Nowhere does it say that “information wants to be free” was the originator of the idea.

It literally says __now__ that we've seen how lies are also information and can travel even better using the same flow, as if it is something recent.

> It’s like someone used Avatar to discuss how colonialism is portrayed in media, and someone came along to say “Pocahontas did it way before”. Alright, but that doesn’t matter for the argument. We’re discussing the idea itself, its origins do not make a difference for the matter.

If someone says that our views on colonialism were naive before Avatar 2 changed our perception of Avatar, of course it is fair to mention Pocahontas and 300 years of nuanced discussions of colonialism.

> I think it should be pretty obvious that dissemination of information and lies today much different than 300 years ago.

Of course, so what? If your implication is that none of the arguments made over 300 years are relevant today, I would say it is pretty obviously completely wrong.

> when you can’t even know if the person on the other side is real or from your own country

Did people in England and France use to know the authors of seditious pamphlets that were produced in the Dutch Republic and smuggled into those countries? Most of them were anonymous. Not only they didn't know the authors, the authors 100% were enabled by foreign actors.

> it’s only distracting from the point

The point: we've seen recently how damaging the fast spread of lies is therefore only naive fools would be against information control. My rebuttal: we've seen how damaging lies are for 300 years, yet it is a deep ongoing debate that many great thinkers contributed to, therefore it is not just a matter of fools believing into something.

Or do you see "the point" to be something different?

The discussions about intellectual property rights are quite recent, but the idea that "lies are also information and can travel even better using the same flow" was well-explored over 300 years of discussions about freedom of speech (and not only discussions, but also jailings, executions, witch hunts, etc).

What exactly is this "information wants to be free" discourse? The arguments for and against freedom of speech as a foundational social principle span at least 300 continuous years.

> But going back to my initial comment, this whole thread feels like proving my point.

Ok, but look at this thread from the POV of someone like me, who reads lots of philosophy daily and who asks you to simply elaborate on your point, and you just continuously keep deflecting from providing an actual argument.

Even in this comment instead of providing an actual philosophically grounded argument based on all those literally great thinkers many of whom I’ve read with great passion you waste your energy on name dropping things that don’t directly support your initial thesis in any way and then you do some meta-commentary on the impossibility of discussing those issues that you can’t even clearly articulate for several days.

If I take a text written on a tangential topic from a generation or two ago and try to imagine how it applies to the current state of AI that would be me putting words in your mouth and speculating on your interpretation.

I don't want to waste time going over weak uncompelling critique like, if human ~~sound production~~ intelligence is analogue, then ~~digital speakers~~ artificial intelligence is unlikely to be possible (to paraphrase the critique of the Biological Assumption); but I am genuinely interested in the increasing evidence that shows that the foundation of modern AI research is flawed.

Now you again say that there is increasing evidence that the assumptions are wrong and that the foundation is flawed, but when you get to specifics you merely claim that something is unknown or unconfirmed.

You say that "the community" derives facts or claims from unproved assumptions, yet at the same time you say that you "strongly tend to disagree" with those theories and that the theories are "flawed in the sense that they cannot account for subjective experience and agency, amongst other things" merely on account that they are neither confirmed nor unconfirmed. I am confused about your stance. You allow yourself to have strong opinions about something unknown yet criticize other people for the same.

I think it is absolutely normal that the core of a theory is based on not directly testable assumptions. And it's normal that people push it forward if it bears fruits, that's not a fallacy in any way, that's normal inquiry that may or may not lead to successful results.

Of course any research programme requires some assumptions. But I don’t see any reason to call it a fallacy. Saying that something may be “challenged” or is problematic is just weasel wording.

Either there are some serious issues that makes such theories ”flawed in the sense that they cannot account for subjective experience and agency, amongst other things”, or they are just normal theories.

What's exactly the fallacy? How do the works help avoid stepping into that "fallacy" if they don't try to solve the issue of consciousness.