dmos62

Selective training makes sense. But, I heard a pentest professional provide this counter-argument: if you tell management which individuals failed the test, even if your intention is to provide those people with the training they lack, the management might, due to ignorance, shift blame for suboptimal security on those people, label them as lazy/incompetent/etc, and ultimately not put the necessary processes (testing, training) in place which are the true determinants of penetration rates. The idea is that you get inefficiency by selecting for training broadly, but you prevent extreme sabotage by ignorant management.

I am surprised how controversial this is. I feel like I'm in that episode of Always Sunny in Philadeplhia where they decide to do an intervention by cornering and berating, while a mental health professional looks on terrified.

So, if I'm reading this correctly, whereas a regular LLM would, given a prompt to edit a file, infer a sed call, this "world" model infers the resulting contents of the file.

That's because susceptibility to attacks is a question of training. What would the goal of placing individual blame be? Shame? Drive them to seek training outside work? Further, if you periodically single out people, the organization will hate you.

Garbage disposal and oss is an amusing comparison.

That sounds almost surreal. Pretty wild how my model of society doesn't account for this.

If it's duplication, it's the same abstraction by definition. The fundamental unit of programming is intent, not code.

I'm not convinced that's what the other commentors was talking about, but thanks for attempting to translate. I can respond to what you're saying though.

Yes, the Lithuanian tech in question is inferior, but that's sort of beside the point. The point is that it's a system unconvincingly reinventing what a significant Lithuanian ally has mastered. Further, the volunteer-based initiative begs the question: where are the state investments, official installations, official initiative in general?

I'm all for open-source hacking, volunteering, etc. But, state defence is a task for the state: defence development is too.

It is embarrassing to watch Baltic airports suspend traffic regularly because of Belorussian baloons or whole of Vilnius shuffling to underground parking structures because a drone-like radar blip appeared a few hundred kilometers away. We need meaningful investment in defence and we need it yesterday. A volunteer initiative to counter these modern airspace threats is so little so late that it's frankly upsetting.

As for deterrence, a volunteer organization for passive listening will not be part of the risk assessment in Kremlin. We need a political class that understands the price of kowtowing, the price of in-fighting, and a defensive capability that is meaningful.

As for concrete solutions, these are democratic governments: vote, discuss, don't be silent. This open-source initiative, as I said initially, is cute: and it might actually make waves where it matters: but my point this is not what we need in of itself.

Further, as I was saying before: cooperation with Ukrainians: trading technology, expertise: establishing long-term industrial relationships.

I don't understand what you're saying. What do you mean by comparison? I don't think that every other country but Ukraine is useless. What makes you say that? What are you saying about nukes?

The Ukrainian system isn't open-source. Not a lot of defence tech is.

I don't know about condescension, but a degree of grounding is in order, I believe. European sense of defence is waking up, but it still needs a lot of stimulation, and patting ourselves on the back for some volunteer work is not that.

Thanks for sharing. So much yet to learn about this topic.

Looking forward to it.

Makes me sad, because I can't make the jump until I know my banking and related essential apps will work.

Note, there is a way to turn on extended support (updates). I'm getting updates on my w10. And random restarts, argh. Googling it should be enough to find it.

What's the motivation behind labor economics channel? Sounds interesting. Care to share it?

Are you saying that specs shouldn't be complex or that you shouldn't write specs at all?

What an absolute nightmare! Did this teach you anything valuable? Apart from staying away from rural Ireland.

What work remains valuable when implementation becomes cheap? How about moving closer to ownership?

I think that in a product-centric or mission-centric perspective, effective automation is good, because it frees you up to do other important things. E.g., in gardening, time spent weeding, is time not spent surviving slug armageddon.

I'm proud of us that multiple nations can coordinate such a complicated project for so long.

It seems there's little agreement over how the web is broken.

I wonder why we broke the web.

And, if you don't want to start a war?

You can tell what kind of discussion this is by the fact that this question has to be asked.

Hey, saw your post on another thread. What makes your apps (or framework?) recursively self-improving?

How do you stop others from making and training a program?

Only people who do pay-per-use optimize this. Most heavy users have their use covered by an employer.

Decent vs best-money-can-buy. Further, a self-hosted LLM will be much slower.

You could post a link.

It very well could be, I don't really follow those discussions. Honestly, if I were worried about something on Earth intellectually evolving at a suboptimal pace, it would be humans.

I'm not aware of this fallacy.

> The AI is all-powerful and gives you what you ask for, but interprets everything in a super-literal way that you end up regretting.

I like imagining similar discourse when a more basic tool was invented: "A hammer is like a genie, it's all powerful, but, when you hit something with it, it interprets that super-literally, and it hits it."