z3c0

Thank you for the laugh. Some probably need to be reminded of Sam Altman's roots, as much I detest what he's done to the word "open".

Not to mention that the objectively bad practice of piping a curl call to bash is nowhere close to "playing doom via curl". It's almost as if they simply prompted "play doom with curl". In my experience, almost any overly-ambitious prompt ends similarly.

Well, this list of known PoUW might be of interest: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S209672092...

While they don't have that many in the wild, the number of implementations it lists is still more than I expected. There's also the Monero 51% takeover, which was purportedly done using a PoUW technique to garner more hashing power.

https://qubic.org/blog-detail/historic-takeover-complete-qub...

I'll throw "proof-of-useful-work" into the ring. Reallocating at least a portion of BTCs verification onto existing energy costs could go a long way. Not suggesting it would be easy or that the entire network would be able to agree on what tasks to use, just that it's a theoretical option.

I'm reminded of Samsung's "AI moon" debacle and how divided people were over it. At the end of the day, any photos with so many unknown variables wouldn't suffice for scientific purposes.

Digital information may be our first post-scarce resource. It's interesting, and sad, to see so many attempt to fit it within scarcity-based economic models.

Plus, there's the disproportionate ratio of posters:commenters:lurkers. The tendency to comment over keeping ones thoughts to themself is a selection bias inofitself.

The habitual espousal of protocol in place of humanistic discretion is the problem the author was trying to call out, and that you're actively partaking in.

Fun fact, traditionally, police officers are called upon to use their discretion over blind enforcement. The mechanized enforcement of law, historically, has never done any favors for society.

It seems Arendt's notion of "the banality of evil" has culturally diminished over time. The sentiment you're pushing is the very basis for Sergeant Shultz's character in Hogan's Heroes[1]. It also doesn't change the lack of any route towards a higher-up, so the tired "they're just an employee" defense really doesn't matter when, for all intents and purposes, that employee is the only way for the author to interact with the bureaucracy they're (very obviously) being ushered through with zero concern for the high-stakes outcome.

In short, the answer to complacency isn't "more complacency".

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Banner

The topic at hand seems to shift the quality of the discussion greatly these days. Many people have thoughts on coding agents because they are aimed at the lower quartiles of coders. Far less have detailed opinions on other ways they could wield a Markov model.

I believe the person you're replying to meant local inferencing. The tool you shared, like most (all?) LLM utilities, is wrapping API calls.

https://github.com/theJayTea/WritingTools/blob/main/Windows_...

You took a presumption and ran with it into baseless vitriol

The deposing of the Shah only took three days. Three days to create half-a-century of turmoil.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...

The Shah and the current state of Iran comes to mind.

..."first with Bitcoin"? Is that the narrative we're buying now? That this problem starts at Bitcoin? Not the coal-fired electrical grid fueling it?

Don't cut yourself on that edge.

It's not terribly insightful to recognize that the publishers are trying to make the best of a bad situation.

Just purchased it. I never would have read it otherwise.

I don't even frame my requests conversationally. They usually read like brief demands, sometimes just comma delimited technologies followed by a goal. Works fine for me, but I also never prompt anything that I don't already understand how to do myself. Keeps the cart behind the horse.

Wherein the assertion was made (by exclusion) that wind and solar are not energy sources. It seems the real intention really was to cull renewables after all, though I doubt anyone is surprised.

Indeed. I can't fault people for wanting to give their careers a boost in these increasingly trying times. As someone who stepped into analytics just in time to catch the wave (10 years ago), I can understand why someone would want to hop aboard.

That said, I at least took the time to learn the maths.

I think we're talking about the same thing. I should be clear that I don't think the selected token probabilities being reported are enough, but if you're reporting each returned tokens probability (both selected and discarded) and aggregating the cumulative probabilities of the given context, it should be possible to see when you're trending centrally towards uncertainty.

Prompt engineers who realized that nobody is buying their bullshit.

Cleaned up of hype, it's just a JavaScript developer who spends their time arguing with APIs in a more literal fashion than those before.

The statistical certainty is indeed present in the model. Each token comes with a probablility; if your softmax results approach a uniform distribution (i.e. all selected tokens at the given temp have near equal probabilities), then the next most likely token is very uncertain. Reporting the probabilities of the returned tokens can help the user understand how likely hallucinations are. However, that information is deliberately obfuscated now, to prevent distillation techniques.

Agreed. All these attempts to benchmark LLM performance based on the interpreted validity of the outputs are completely misguided. It may be the semantics of "context" causing people to anthropomorphize the models (besides the lifelike outputs.) Establishing context for humans is the process of holding external stimuli against an internal model of reality. Context for an LLM is literally just "the last n tokens". In that case, the performance would be how valid the most probablistic token was with the prior n tokens being present, which really has nothing to do with the perceived correctness of the output.

1700 directories at the project root...

Amodei's work history indicates that his background as a software developer is a single part-time job that he held for a year-and-a-half after college. As far as I'm concerned, he wouldn't even make it as a junior on my team. I'm not inclined to believe anything he says about what it takes to write production-ready code.

It will do exactly what you tell it to do, unless you're the first person doing "it".

How many more times is someone going to write this same comment?

I think Graphene gets posted here yearly. Having tested a variety of ROMs dedicated to different elements of security, I can attest that Graphene allows the most "normal" phone usage compared to many others. The biggest factor is the sandboxed Google Play Services, which allow you to use a lot of apps that you wouldn't be able to otherwise.

I've used Lineage without MicroG, as a comparison, and that's becoming more-and-more unusable every day some lousy Android developer tethers their company's app to some feature exclusive to Play Services.

I'm a native English speaker who asks myself the same questions on most emails. You can use LLM outputs all you want, but if you're worried about the tone, LLM edits drive the tone to a level of generic that ranges from milquetoast, to patronizing, to outright condescending. I expect some will even begin to favor pushy emails, because at least it feels human.