mtlmtlmtlmtl

This is such a common HN trope, and it's tiresome.

Yes, lots of things will at any point be beyond the technical ability of most people as long as they remain niche. But as soon as a sizable market exists(e.g one created by a law, like in this case), products and services that close that gap will appear.

Hell, there's even stuff for doing this already, which is not that hard for non-technical people to set up, like Tailscale. I can easily imagine a Tailscale-like product that easily allows friends to use eachothers networks as a VPN with zero configuration or Wireguard knowledge required. I mean, when you think about it it's just Tailscale but more streamlined for that particular purpose.

On what planet is it similar? The labs are taking the copyrighted material and attempting to make billions of dollars from it. And this, in your mind, is "similar" to me downloading a TV show simply to watch it?

Sure, those are the ingredients for evolution to occur. Replication and variation affecting selection.

But it's also pretty reductive to say it's the entire thing. You'd be hard pressed to describe the history of life on earth using only those three concepts. You could do it, but it would be a bit like describing the workings of a human cell exclusively using quantum field theory.

There are many emergent concepts, the understanding of which brings a lot more explanatory power. Things like selective pressure and evolvability. Our understanding of evolutionary biology and evolution in general indeed continues to evolve nearly 2 centuries after On the Origin of Species.

One of the most interesting things to me is that the process of evolution itself evolves. Variation, replication and selection evolve over time. Evolution seems to accelerate. Evolution can even create entirely new substrates for itself on top of the old ones. If you look at all the traits that distinguish humans from our closest relatives, the brain sizes, the slow maturation of offspring, our vocal chords, complex language, etc, there's a single thread running through all of it, namely an entirely new evolutionary substrate: culture. Once culture appeared, evolution accelerated massively. And cultural evolution itself seems to accelerate. It took several hundreds of thousands of years to get to the agricultural revolution, but then it only took several thousand years to reach the industrial revolution/enlightenment. From there it took centuries to invent the computer, about half a century for the internet and now society changes dramatically within a single decade, some might even argue a single year. In certain specific cases, we can even do evolution in the span of hours or minutes (seconds?) now, with genetic algorithms and the like.

And yes, biological evolution, cultural evolution and genetic algorithms all operate via variation, selection and replication, but it should be pretty clear by now how important all the little details and emergent phenomena are for understanding the differences between them.

I actually tried something similar, but failed. I'm curious, how often did you dilute and by how much?

This was my setup: I mixed up 100ml of e-juice in a graduated bottle at whatever strength I was using at the time, somewhere between 15 and 20 mg/ml, can't remember exactly. From that bottle, I would fill a separate 10ml bottle, which I'd use to refill my tank. After refilling the 10ml bottle, I would top up the big bottle with VG/PG back up to 100ml, so diluting by 10%. I was vaping about half a 5ml tank per day at this point, so the 10ml one lasted about 4 days, and I'd top up the tank every morning. The theory being that the stuff in the tank would also get somewhat diluted every time I topped it up, since it would gradually get more of the stuff from the most recent filling of the 10ml bottle.

But somehow I just ended up unconsciously vaping more and with longer puff until I was at one tank per day, and then more than one tank per day.

There is probably some truth to what you're saying, but also keep in mind that tobacco contains more active compounds than nicotine alone, including MAO inhibitors in the form of harmala alkaloids. These can synergise with nicotine and make it more addictive.

Also, I'm dubious about your claim that most people need breaks, or at least any more than vapers do. I was a smoker for over a decade. I don't remember ever feeling like "that's enough, my throat hurts". It's just that smoking was triggered by the onset of withdrawal, which begins after about an hour, and becomes urgent after maybe 2-3 hours. So I'd typically smoke at an interval of 1-3 hours depending on how convenient it was to do so. And cigarettes are expensive, so that factors into it too.

Sometimes though, especially when drinking, I could chain smoke for a couple hours straight while hanging out in a park with friends, especially in the summer.

After I switched to vaping though, I have at times ended up puffing so enthusiastically that I've made myself nauseous from the nicotine. So there's certainly a limit there too.

Edit: another interesting thing I've noticed. Nicotine withdrawal seems much less severe after I switched to vaping. It takes several hours longer to become noticeable, and also feels less intense. When smoking, it took me 1 hour to start craving a cigarette, by 3 hours I'm becoming irritable with strong craving, and by 5 hours I'm extremely irritable, light-headed, and the only thing on my mind is smoking, completely incapable of focusing on anything except how to get some cigarettes and how to get to somewhere I can smoke em.

For vaping, it takes me maybe 7-8 hours to get to the 3 hour mark for smoking. I certainly get cravings long before that, maybe starting at 2-3 hours, but I'm able to push it out of my mind much more easily, for much longer. I don't know why this is. My theory is something to do with the lack of MAO inhibitors. It's also possible that it's a pharmacokinetic phenomenon, but that seems counterintuitive. If I'm ingesting higher doses of nicotine compared to smoking, blood levels will take longer to go to zero. But then I should also have higher tolerance, and therefore a higher threshold for the onset of withdrawal, since tolerance and chemical dependence are more or less the same thing.

Yep, good observation. And it's so exhausting not to take a side. Because people on both sides invariably misinterpret you as being on the other side and strawman you accordingly.

Personally, I agree with the author on some things. The copyright laundering, the PR theatrics in search of regulatory capture, the concentration of power in a handful of gargantuan corporations in a country currently headed for totalitarianism at an alarming pace. The proliferation of slop drowning out all the good stuff. These are genuine issues, and they worry me, a great deal.

And yet, it's become impossible to seriously contend that this technology isn't tremendously useful for certain tasks. I've used it myself with good results. But I don't buy the maximally bullish view that an LLM will eventually surpass humans in all areas. There are severe flaws with the technology that are inherent to its architecture and simply cannot be scaled away. This is as incontrovertible to me as its usefulness. The trough of disillusionment is coming for all of us, it always does. And much like the internet past the trough, we'll have a lot of cool new shit as a result of this technology, and we'll have a lot of horrifying new problems as well. This is the case for any paradigm shifting technology.

That's my view when trying my best to be objective.

Subjectively though, I'm deeply depressed about it all. LLMs have taken everything I love about computing and turned it on its head. I got into computers because they were so different from people. Mathematical, rigorous, efficient, unambigious(yes, bugs can be very confusing but there's always a satisfying and logical answer to dig out with enough effort). Now, apparently, to do the job I (used to) love, I have to spend most my time spoonfeeding instructions to a pretentious, know-it-all asshole who repeatedly fails to follow simple instruction, and yet is somehow still better than me at my job. I hate it. I'm 10 times more productive, and 100% of the joy is gone. I've quit, and I'm now considering what the fuck to do with my life. Something with minimal computer involvement. I will continue to code as a hobby and tool for my own purposes, LLM free, but I won't even bother uploading my code anywhere, because what's the point.

> Absolutely no human ever could be good at chess just by reading a few books, or even every book on chess.

Maybe not, but you'd be surprised how little it takes.

A six year old child can learn the rules of chess well enough to be able to play legal moves only in a single day. And they can improve their game at a pace which is almost frightening to behold. I have taught children, and I've witnessed significant improvement materialise in a single game. LLMs have probably thousands of chess books, games, videos, etc in their training data, yet they are unable to even follow the rules.

This is, at the very least, interesting. It illustrates many of the things brains can do, which current ML systems in general, and LLMs in particular, can't.

Interesting that you say you had no visuals from LSD. How high a dose?

It's surprising to me, because as far as I understand it, psychedelic visuals aren't really akin to daydreams or internally generated imagery, but abnormal processing of external imagery. At least for relatively mild experiences. Something like a DMT breakthrough is a whole other story from what I hear, though I've never been there myself.

First of all, there is no password, unless you somehow have the actual encrypted file of private keys that Satoshi used way back when, at which point you probably know who Satoshi is and could just use the $5 wrench attack anyway, assuming they're alive.

The only information you'd get from the blockchain is the public key. So you'd have to break elliptic curve cryptography to derive the private key in order to sign transactions from the Satoshi wallet. To do that you'd need novel mathematics. Which is possible, maybe, or maybe not. But keep in mind that elliptic curve cryptography has had our smartest minds trying to break it for years, unsuccessfully, as opposed to a single enciphered sentence from an obscure source which hasn't seen nearly as much academic attention.

As for some bug in the blockchain protocol or code implementing it, allowing an attacker to sign transactions without the necessary private key... It's possible that this exists, but I'd expect it to have been found by now considering whoever finds such a thing could stand to earn trillions of dollars from it. That's quite the "bug bounty".

Here in Norway we already have issues with volatile and high electricity prices, because:

1) We're not expanding hydropower generation very much. We can upgrade existing dams for improved efficiency, but no new dams are being planned, because it's politically and environmentally arduous to do so. There's some wind buildout, but that's also a political quagmire due to nimbyism. Nuclear isn't even close to having a political consensus behind it, and even if it did, it would take years. And our geography is uniquely ill suited for solar.

2) Winters have less and less snow, summers have less and less rain, leading to issues filling reservoirs. This will only get worse in the future.

3) The north has a surplus, but the infrastructure for transferring it to the south is underdeveloped

4) lots of the electricity we generate is being sold to central Europe to compensate for Germany's idiotic decision to shut down their nuclear reactors and Trump's idiotic decision to send oil prices over $100

Unfortunately data centres are currently being built, which depresses me. Because who will use them? Giant American tech companies will use them, to lobotomise our youth, poison our political discourse and steal our personal data. Fuck that.

Data centres also create very few jobs beyond the initial construction phase. Overall it's a very, very bad deal for Norway as a nation.

I have some questions as a chess player who barely even understands the rules of go. First these josekis sound like what in chess is called a forced tactical sequence. When you say Shin played out a long complex joseki, how does he do that? Does he have to read/calculate it out over the board(50 moves seems crazy to me unless the search tree is highly constrained by geometry/deduction/very few candidate moves, which does occasionally happen in chess endgames), or is the joseki more of a fixed sequence of moves which he's memorised, only needing to read to "punish" if the opponent diverges?

Second, if it is a fixed sequence, how position independent is it? In chess, tactical sequences end up depending on the entire board state to work when they get sufficiently long. I guess what I'm asking is, could a player with some capacity for stategic thinking recognise this idea and take steps to make the flying knife impossible?

I really should spend some more time learning go, it's such a fascinating game.

Probably a better comparison from the chess world(in reasonably modern times, though perhaps players like Capablanca and Lasker could be mentioned as well. Alas, I don't think FIDE rating existed back then) is Bobby Fischer. In the july 1972 FIDE rating list he held a rating of 2785, the highest in history at the time, with Spassky in second sitting at a "measly" 2660, and only 13 players being above 2600 even.

I'll never understand why people post LLM outputs in forums pretending they wrote it themselves.

You asked Claude or some other agent to make your argument for you, and what you got was a well formatted pile of nothing. Bravo.

I've messed around with pretty much all the fancy new terms to varying extents. Ghostty, wezterm, alacritty, etc. And I'm all in favour of people innovating in this space again. But at the end of the day, I always end up back with xterm. It's reasonably lightweight, runs and is packaged absolutely everywhere, I never have to muck about with termcap files and/or $TERM on remote hosts, and I've never had it break, crash, or exhibit any kind of bug or strange behaviour in over a decade of using it. The only TUI that has some quirks in xterm is Emacs, but Emacs has weird quirks in every term I've tried to run it in, and different quirks in every case somehow, so I just chalk that up to Emacs being weird. I'm sure xterm has some bugs buried in it still, but I bet all of them are in codepaths that are almost never reached nowadays, or at least are extremely niche. It does lack some features like ligature fonts(I just decided not to care), sixels and similar graphics things(again, don't really care) and panes/tabs/yadda yadda(tmux or screen or whatever you like can do all of that anyway).

Never had to dig through the xterm bug tracker to figure something out. I don't even know what version I'm running, or even what the versioning scheme looks like. I haven't changed the configuration since the first time I set it up. It just works.

Kramnik undeniably pushed Naroditsky into developing an addiction which ultimately contributed to his death. Whether it was intentional suicide or accidental overdose(both are possible) seems to me to be completely irrelevant.

Kramnik engaged in a dedicated bullying and a smear campaign against Danya for a prolonged period, without substantive evidence, and never let up. When Danya explicitly stated in multiple interviews that Kramnik was seriously affecting his mental health, Kramnik persisted in his harassment. When Danya's mental health ultimately led to his death, Kramnik tried to put the blame on everyone but himself, including Danya, his friends and family, even the entire chess community. According to Kramnik, it seems like he is the only one who's completely blameless. It's good that he's being punished, but I think the punishment is too mild. In my opinion he should be stripped of all his titles, including his world titles.

The sad fact is that Kramnik is a pathetic narcissist, who because he's a shadow of his former strength, and a slow old man, gets easily beaten in online blitz, and then accuses people of cheating to protect his wounded ego, because he wants to pretend he hasn't declined.

I actually found going from non-split to split surprising easy, simply because none of my old muscle memory worked anymore, and I had never touch typed up until then, so I wasn't able to go back to the old way out of frustration. A few hours of doing touch typing drills on some free online thing, and I could type at 30wpm, and then it only took about a week of doing my usual coding, IRC chatting etc to get back up to my usual 100wpm.

Also surprising was that after I got there, I could also touch type pretty easily on a normal keyboard. But my old ad hoc 5 finger typing had somehow disappeared entirely.

Ceterizine does cross the BBB to some extent, just less so than a lot of furst gen ones. So it can still have some hypnotic effects, sure.

But that's not the important difference here. The important difference is that ceterizine has negligible antimuscarinic effects, unlike DPH, meclizine, cyclizine et al. Antimuscarinics are nasty drugs, and the antimuscarinic activity(and sometimes other non-histaminergic activity as well) is why a lot of first generation antihistamines are so bad for your brain.

If this could somehow be used to implement proc macros in lisp instead of rust, I'd be very interested in exploring real use cases. But from my limited understanding of how it works, it seems not.

I've never owned a mechanical watch(did just recently buy an Orient solar watch after I lost my fitbit while traveling and after a couple weeks, realised the only feature I actually missed was having the time on my wrist), but I like watching the channel Wristwatch Revival on youtube. That guy will often repair old watches that most watchmakers won't touch, sent in by viewers, and make content out of it. And he especially loves taking on watches thathave sentimental value for the owner.

He also recently started a watch repair shop specifically catering to cases most watchmakers won't accept, might be worth checking out.

https://www.youtube.com/c/WristwatchRevival/

https://restoration.sutcliffehansen.com/

I don't think so, considering a substantial proportion of their comments on this site seems to be fanboying for SpaceX in particular and anything AI in general.

Thanks for the detailed answers.

I can understand being hesitant about sharing the details of why you wanted the antipsychotics. It sounds like this is your first(hopefully last!) brush with psychotic/dissociative states of mind. Though I can't pretend to know what it was like for you, I can tell you I've been in similar situations. I've had several cases of acute psychosis caused by drugs(sometimes stimulants, sometimes synthetic cannabinoids) and/or sleep deprivation in the past. I also experimented heavily with all manner of psychedelic and hallucinogenic drugs in my early 20s, and I'm a severe hashish addict(currently 2.5 years in remission thanks to a moderation oriented treatment program I designed myself). It can be profoundly and existentially scary. You encounter parts of your psyche that you may never have met before, and reality breaks apart at the seams. You truly learn the extent to which your perceptions, thoughts, and even intentions are at the whims of implementation details in your brain. If you want, I could share some concrete anecdotes from my own experiences. But the main thing I want to say is give it time. These things must be processed, and it takes time, but it will get easier. And in time you will emerge with a better understanding of what it is to be human, and of yourself.

As to your comment on LSD, I support that. Sanity is taken for granted, until you temporarily lose it. If at some point you change your mind on exploring psychedelics, my advice would be to ditch LSD and go with psilocybin mushrooms instead, for a number of reasons.

Psychedelics very rarely cause actual psychosis, but LSD should have a higher risk than most, because unlike psilocin(the active compound in mushrooms, which psilocybin is converted into), LSD has non-trivial activity at dopamine receptors, and importantly the D2 receptors. LSD is in some sense the opposite to an antipsychotic in that it acts on the same receptors as antipsychotics, but with an opposite effect. Drugs that act as agonists on D2 receptors(usually Parkinsons meds) are well documented to cause psychosis in some people, as are stimulants like amphetamine which increase synaptic dopamine levels.

Psilocybin mushrooms are also pretty safe in that as long as you've identified the mushrooms correctly, you know what's in them. LSD on the other hand, more often than not is not actually the "original" LSD these days, but some LSD analogue. Usually it'll be something very similar in structure and effect to LSD, but it'll still be poorly studied compared to LSD. There are also drugs which are substantially different from LSD being sold on blotter paper as LSD, and some of these can be quite toxic(25i-nbome), extremely long lasting(DOB, DOM), or both(bromo-dragonfly).

Psilocybin is also free of course, since it's bound to be growing someplace near you in vast amounts, though the specific species depends on where you live.

And finally, it's much easier to take psilocybin in small doses. I always recommend people do this when trying psychedelics for the first time. Try a sub-threshold dose first, just enough to feel a little "weird". See how it feels, decide whether to do more next time, or stop, etc. It's possible to this with LSD, but it's much trickier, because LSD usually comes on this tiny little blotter paper. You can cut it up into smaller pieces, but there's no guarantee the drug is evenly distributed across the paper, and it's also impossible to be completely sure how much drug is on the blotter in the first place, unless you made them yourself. Mushrooms on the other hand are usually measured in grams; much easier.

But yeah, I'm not recommending you do psychedelics. Especially not any time soon, while you're still healing. It's always good to have a stable baseline before you go stirring the pot, so to speak.

This is the first I'm hearing about anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis; what a strange and scary condition. If you don't mind the prying, I'm curious about some things.

I noticed you said in another comment that you were treated with antipsychotics in the psych ward. Would you say they had any effect in lessening the symptoms? My intuition says no, since I'm not aware of any conventional antipsychotics that interact with NMDA receptors directly(mostly they act on dopamine and serotonin receptors), but psychopharmacology is tricky that way...

And, another thing. Have you ever tried dissociative drugs(like ketamine, PCP, DXM), and if so, how similar would you say your experience was to those drug experiences? Of course, feel free to tell me to fuck off if you don't want to discuss that in a public forum.

Glad to hear that you found your way out of the psych ward to get properly diagnosed and treated. I've witnessed first hand people getting trapped in the psych system with neurological or endocrinological conditions. It can be almost impossible to get out, especially if the "diagnosis" is a psychotic disorder. Once you have such a diagnosis pinned on you, anything you say can be dismissed as a delusion, and most psychiatrists are woefully bad at considering somatic explanations for symptoms. You definitely got very lucky.

It's very interesting because my 13900K has worked like a dream from day one and still to this day. Never had any of the voltage issues, never had any abnormal crashes in Firefox or any other software. I was undervolting it for a long while, so I wonder if somehow that saved me from the voltage issues before they were fixed?

Don't be ridiculous.

And which features have been removed, as you claim? Removing code is not necessarily removing features. I use GOS and I honestly can't think of a missing feature compared to the stock OS, other than stuff not in AOSP in the first place, like gemini.

You said removing features. This link is talking about making certain feautures optional and disabled by default, not removing them.

Don't often see the great Dang commenting in a non-moderation capacity, and that's really a shame, because this is one of the most interesting, well-formulated comments I've seen on here for a while. I fully agree with your frustration with the AI zeitgeist, but I won't pretend to have any input to alleviate that frustration. I would love to much less eloquently rant about lisp(and emacs) and other vaguely related things for a bit though, so here goes.

The tendency for the Lisp community to self-segregate into these bubbles is something that's perplexed me for years. You noted that you don't agree with it; I'd in be interested in why. I do agree with it, in the sense that this phenomenon does occur to an extent, and certainly to a larger extent in Lisp compared to other languages. The part I don't agree with is that this is a universal deal-breaker for Lisp. And there's still plenty of cooperation and sharing in the Lisp community. Emacs once again is the prime example. Yes, every .emacs is as unique as a fingerprint. But the reason GNU Emacs refuses to die is precisely its wonderful ecosystem of extensions that have in fact been shared and maintained by a wider community. And this ecosystem is in part possible because GNU Emacs is devoid of any sort of boundary between application code and extension code, which is a philosophy that can be traced back to the LISP machine era.

It's also interesting to tie this in with RMS(the author of GNU emacs, what a coincidence!) and his stance on Free Software really being about every individual user being free to modify the software they run. Of course, the deep implications of this philosophy, and its implementation in Emacs and other Lisp software, are clear to me, because I'm a Lisp programmer, just like RMS. And the Free Software movement originated in a time when most people with access to a computer had at least some amount of familiarity with programming. But as computing has become mainstream, RMS' original vision has morphed, and the focus has been on the importance of the wider community being able to modify software. And that's certainly important. But it's not really free software in the original sense unless you happen to be a programmer. Most software users today are not programmers and likely never will be, so regardless of how the software they're using is licenced, they're not really free in that original sense, are they?

Then LLMs showed up. And suddenly, I can see on the horizon a revival of free software in the original sense. And yet it feels quite far away. For this to become reality, we need a lot more than what we have currently, which is a pretty damn good search engine/meme generator for the "normies", and a pretty damn good boilerplate generator for the coders. I think we probably need an entirely new concept of what software even is. I think we probably need new foundational research. I don't necessarily see a role for current LLM architectures in this. I feel more like current SOTA is scratching at the surface of the real deal, and it may take a few years to understand how to make foundational progress. Maybe we even need another AI winter to force the capital expenditure into other avenues. Certainly we need foundation models that are open in all possible senses of the word. Being tied to proprietary, heavily censored blob running in a giant datacenter is a non-starter.

It seems like the majority of people in the field have some intense tunnel vision about LLMs and transformer architectures. I'd love to see more variation there. I know Lecunn is doing some unique stuff. I can't pretend to understand whether it has legs, but I applaud the effort. Certainly we need to address the issue of energy expenditure, the absurd amount of data and training iterations required, and the lack of online learning. Human brains are vastly superior at all 3 of those metrics. So like, how about addressing that instead of just building ever larger sandcastles filled with nvidia chips? Anyone?

Those are some of the thoughts percolating through my head. I can't really figure out what to so with them. Maybe someone else can. Please? Thank you.

It doesn't have to be, but that's not really an argument for claiming it isn't. Considering how deeply embedded privacy violation is in Meta's corporate DNA, is there any reason other than hilariously naïve and inexplicably charitable, hypothetical speculation to believe this is not motivated by more privacy violation for profit, just like literally every single thing Meta has done in the entire history of the company? No? Didn't think so.

As an avid Spelunky player(still trying to complete the Cosmic Ocean...), I recently decided to explore some of Spelunky's roots, and set out to learn Nethack, and fell in love with the game. After a few weeks of dying repeatedly, perusing the wiki, and watching the Ascending in Nethack Overexplained series on youtube(highly recommended), I managed to ascend a valkyrie. Planning on trying a harder role soon. It's amazing how tense it can be despite the turn based nature of the game.

I do like the nerfs in this release. Making excalibur harder to get for Valkyries is a good one, as well as nerfing the unicorn horn. The run where I ascended felt a bit too easy at times. But of course valkyrie will still be by far the easiest role, I think. I bet I'll be stuck for quite a while trying to ascend anything else.