fladrif

2 Points; Regulation is not the antithesis of Innovation, Monopolies break the Game.

This point keeps coming up, regulation in europe stifles their innovative capacity, with silicon valley's companies brought up as show horses. Outside of tech I'm not sure what other "business" the US is so dominant in. In tech, so much can be attributed to network effects and compounding interest (loosely speaking) that it can't be so trivial to say anyone else with less regulation can mimic it.

You can't beat monopolies with innovation. You beat monopolies with regulation, but even then left unchecked monopolies and the entrenched wealth it generates can overcome regulatory bodies and subvert their intentions.

Unfortunately it's not too bad for them, it's too bad for everyone they're around. They aren't the ones that lose out when we start dismantling open source communities.

This is because you're already in that mindset.

Try to take the stance of someone who doesn't really know too much about open source other than it's a nuisance to use, this is a great idea! I wanted to use this tool that corporate said we couldn't touch, but now I can!

Satire is too dangerous to be presented outside of its community. This honestly should've been left within FOSDEM.

It's great within the context of people who understand it, enlightening even. Sparks conversations and debates. But outside of it ignorance wields it like a bludgeon and dangerous to everyone around them. Look at all the satirical media around fascism, if you knew to criticize you could laugh, but for fascists it's a call to arms.

No, but that's not a fair comparison. LLM's are inherently non-deterministic. Boilerplate generation is.

I think this is a lot of "kicking can down the road" of not understanding what code the ai is writing. Once you give up understanding the code that is written there is no going back. You can add all the helper commit messages, architecture designs, plans, but then you introduce the problem of having to read all of those once you run into an issue. We've left readability on the wayside to the alter of "writeability".

The paradigm shift, which is a shift back, is to embrace the fact that you have to slow down, and understand all the code the ai is writing.

I don't understand, your position is the same as Anthropic, yet you disagree with their stance?

And I wouldn't take the case of Trump and Mamdani as the exemplar of Trump's overall behavior towards opponents. The amount of evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.

> political alignment I favour was as Big Tent as Donald Trump's administration is

I'm not sure how accurate this sentiment is. Your desire is to embrace your enemy without resolving the differences, and get what you want. It's not clear here if you're advocating compromise and negotiation, or just embracing for the sake of embracing while just doing what you wanted all along.

And evaluating Trump's actions against this sentiment doesn't seem to be the negotiation and compromise interpretation. Given the situation with tariffs and ICE enforcement, there is no indication of negotiation or compromise other than complete fealty/domination.

So as grandiose and noble your sentiment is, Donald Trump is hardly the epitome of it as you seem to suggest.

I'm not sure if it's a local issue or intended, but the dots change color when crossing different niches(?), like their color is filtered through the background pane. I would imagine the color of the dots represent specific species and shouldn't change color across environments.

I found a path from Piano to Volcano with 107 generated topics! Piano → Piano City (places) Piano City → Music festivals (broader) Music festivals → Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival (deeper) Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival → Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival Indio (deeper) Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival Indio → Coachella Valley (places) Coachella Valley → Heatwave (evil) Heatwave → Climatology (broader) Climatology → Climate science (similar) Climate science → Meteorology (broader) Meteorology → Atmospheric sciences (similar) Atmospheric sciences → Meteorology (similar) Meteorology → Geomorphology (opposite) Geomorphology → Geomorphic processes (similar) Geomorphic processes → Earth science (broader) Earth science → Geology (deeper) Geology → Tectonics (deeper) Tectonics → Subduction Zone (similar) Subduction Zone → Mantle convection (similar) Mantle convection → Mantle plume (evil) Mantle plume → Plate tectonics (broader) Plate tectonics → Mantle Plume (deeper) Mantle Plume → Hawaii hotspot (deeper) Hawaii hotspot → Volcano hotspot (similar).

Try it yourself at www.llmgame.ai

I completely agree, I spent half the post confused about what exploits they were taking advantage of, and why I _shouldn't_ use passkeys.

What's the alternative?

I'm not sure if you've used their scroll feature, but if you swipe up from the bottom with a single finger you bring up a scroll bar over all pages with a small preview for the current selected page. It works pretty well for <50 pages

I think this exposes a pattern, but not necessarily on the subject or antithetical to OP's point. I interpret the above passage to implicate that we lose abilities as we adopt tools that can do it for us, but writing specifically stunts our ability to memorize facts. I would argue that this enabled us to spend less mental energy on memorization but on processing information instead, able to do more complex calculations. This doesn't negate OP's point that by using LLM's we give up another kind of ability to a tool, in the case reasoning.

Now whether or not this will in the abstract become leverage for another type of skill or multiplier is to be seen.

Could you elaborate?

If true, this throws into relief the dialogue of "What is your alcohol consumption like?", "Just socially".

On the whole it's also conflating different incentives. You don't typically associate your costs with _how_ you're using your tools, at least you don't want to. It creates a bad (or perverse) incentives to change how you work in order to minimize costs, you're rewarding your users to use your product less.

Why is there credit due? It's hard for me to accept the fact that children owe their parents for giving birth to them. I would say credit is due how the parents treat their child afterwards is what matters.

Unfortunately he as a historian specializes in the Mediterranean, specifically Rome.

From what I understand, price is sticky. It may have been difficult to be greedy as a first mover, and also difficult to cooperate to increase prices. When an external driver (pandemic) occurred, all players found a natural driver of prices and let their instincts take off. My unlearned thoughts.

> humans are trained on their own output

And it seems we're emulating that same cycle. Humans are trained not only on our own output, but also take changes from our environment. So in this sense LLM's environment would be human input.

> I'm here so I can have self-sovereignty of my money.

Except you aren't really. You will always be beholden to one entity or another, in bitcoin the 51% who need to clear your transactions. You just decide to not trust in the current financial apparatus and instead bet on the new.

Well whether or not you think banking / government cooperation is a good thing, the fact of the matter is that even when large catastrophes occur, the system is brought back up on its feet.

You can't say the same for crypto systems, luna / terra being a very recent example.

It doesn't need to upload audio data though, transcribing it to text would accomplish 90% of their use cases.

Because sometimes you lose the important details in the generalization. Counter example would be that the dollars created aren't spent depending on how they're distributed. If put under people's mattresses, put into the stock market, or sitting in a savings account, those don't enter circulation and increase the flow of money.

And in the case that the malicious supermajority isn't breaking the rules? In the stated instance where they're omitting certain transactions, what rule would they be breaking?

What are these rules? Say for instance 51% of validators decide to include a malicious transaction inside of a block, what rules would that be breaking?

Having read your article, I still don't understand one part. The claim that the honest validators in the face of a malicious superminority can eventually leak them out, but a malicious supermajority cannot do the same to an honest superminority. I figure there would need to be some other mechanism that would tip the balance in favor of the honest validators, otherwise it seems like majority should always win.

Haha I'm not sure if you were being serious, but the workflow you just outlined is the clunky part of SSM. The pre-requisites are getting all the IAM roles and permissions setup (no mean feat), installing the agent, configuring it with keys generated by another user, and getting the connection information back from the aws console. This promises to be a lot easier to setup and authenticate, install tailscale, login.

To be fair, rarely do people have an accurate grasp on what normality is. Just the breadth of human experience is impossible to capture much less experience and process, not to mention the experience of people that is never expressed (I may be having a bad week, but I wouldn't express it, much less share it openly with coworkers)