zer0gravity

This seems more of a battle for frontier AI supremacy. I'm afraid that small capable models have been left in the dust. Big labs don't really want to hand over the golden eggs goose to the end user. Possibly the hardware vendors(e.g. Nvidia) may want to play in that area as well, to pull money from all parties.

The probability is high that major AI development companies are already using an AI instance internally for strategic and tactical decisions. The State power institutions, especially intelligence, are now having a real competitor in the private sector.

I have created a simulation of how a tree can be grown from a programmable cellular automata. Each cell executes some operations, including replication, based on the surrounding conditions and its age/iteration. More complex organisms can be grown with this technique.

You can play too with it here: https://acionescu.github.io/digitalfire/WebContent/

This insight makes one wonder if the same thing applies to humans as well. Are we just the sum of our experiences? Or the architectures of our brains are much more complex and different so that they have more influence on the outputs for the same inputs?

As many have stated here, the problem is not that there aren't good data exchange protocols in the world, the problem is the PROTOCOL or the MODEL by which the world works, which is maximizing financial profit, not civilizational profit. Humanity is not yet capable of acting as a whole, we're still in a paradigm where each part is trying to rule the other parts. With this kind of mindset, a territorial mindset, it's only logical that every actor out there is trying to control as much as it can, and create an advantage for itself. That's why no sharing and cooperation data protocol catches, because those are incompatible with the current state of Affairs.

Absolutely! Should have said interesting and valuable.

I'd say that this is a romanticized holistic vs reductionist exploration. Interesting nonetheless.

I get the same :( I'm on Archlinux.

This is amazing! There are a lot of low level things that I don't really grasp and, while going through the APE description, I saw this: "The other tradeoff is the GCC Runtime Exception forbids code morphing, but I already took care of that for you, by rewriting the GNU runtimes".

Can somebody, please, explain if allowing code morphing will increase security risks?

I'm not talking about a zillion protocols with discoverable services, but of a single language of the internet that allows service discoverability and concept sharing dynamically between peers.

What I think we need is Interoperability, not just protocols. What I understand by interoperability is what a mature (spoken) language provides. Although its body of words remains pretty much fixed, it offers a wide range of expression. I think that what we need is a language of the internet to achieve this type of interoperability. So, in a way, a language can be seen as a communication protocol and, with such a language, two systems can talk and discover and consume each other's services. This language shouldn't change too much, but it should be complex enough, to start with, in order to allow a high degree of expression and, ultimately, interoperability.

Open-source is eating the world and, in some sense, the other way around too.

I'm really not that knowledgeable about the alternatives. I would say that this is a very rudimentary form of IRC in terms of functionalities, but with encrypted connection between the nodes and making it easy for a user to run its own node. It offers a basic video conferencing feature as well.

Hi, creator here. This is a basic anonymous chat with video conferencing, implemented over a federated network of nodes that communicate over encrypted connections, exchanging events.

Basically, anyone can run their own node and access the services implemented over this infrastructure or connect to an existing node. For now, only this chat demo is implemented. One can choose to run its own node locally and accesses the chat app via their local node, the communication will be effectively end-to-end encrypted this way.

I'm here to answer any questions.

Hi, creator here. This is a basic anonymous chat with video conferencing, implemented over a federated network of nodes that communicate over encrypted connections, exchanging events.

Basically, anyone can run their own node and access the services implemented over this infrastructure or connect to an existing node. For now, only this chat demo is implemented. One can choose to run its own node locally and accesses the chat app via their local node, the communication will be effectively end-to-end encrypted this way.

I'm here to answer any questions.

This makes me ask the question: Is it possible for a cellular automata to measure its state in one region without getting inconsistent results, since the simple act of measuring means changing its state?

Sliding your fingers over more rows at a time is fun.

Feature request: Looping -> Being able to record a sequence or more and then using them as background.

It depends on what you want to achieve. Do you want to rapidly build up a community around the project or you just want to provide some value on the long term to whoever may be interested in what you offer.

If you want the former, then you'll probably have to spend considerably more time engaging with users, and, as a developer myself, I can say that that will probably be annoying.

If you want the latter, just let things flow naturally. Periods of development and user engagement will probably alternate, as you spend time working on a new feature and presenting it to the community and gathering feedback.

You may also want to spend a small amount of time daily/weekly to just check on active user feedback.

P.S. I run and NGO and manage/develop a platform consisting of a mobile app and a site that allows users to send feedback to public institutions on various types of problems and also integrate the public info so that it is available for anyone to check out. Personally I want this to evolve organically and I spend my time as described above ( the second scenario ).

The only thing I can say about this is that, once we'll have BMIs, the Government will want to tap into that as well, because you may have dangerous thoughts.

If you see the insanity of this, you should see the insanity of the Government tapping into private messages.

It's probably even happier with unregulated ones...

How about the fact that Apple created an unregulated, opaque mesh network from its own devices?

No guarantees are provided that this network, under Apples's exclusive control, won't relay other type of information.

If you come to think at it, this "worm" is really a form of life, with a certain degree of intelligence, I might add.

Just like a biological virus, it replicates itself, it hijacks a pretty secure environment, like a cell, and uses it, first to replicate even more, and second, to alter its behaviour in order to accomplish its "goals", meaning deeply hidden instructions that only activate, and this is amazing, only in certain conditions, just how a certain piece of DNA is only activated in certain conditions in the cell.

The intelligent part, in a more humane uderstanding of the term, comes when it is able to act and update in a distributed fashion orchestrated by a central command and control.

This is not just a sophisticated form of software. This is a sophisticated form of life, albeit a distructive one.

Now imagine what this type of attack would do to self driving cars...

> We are heading onto a more closed ecosystem than we are used to up until here.

Not necessarily. Balancing forces always come up when this kind of things happen. The closing in of big players may give a big boost to open source hardware alternatives, which combined with the advent of 3d printing, may very well lead to the democratization of hardware...

Commodity has its price.

Move fast and disregard all privacy isn't always an option, especially if you care about a certain moral hygene. But who cares in the post-truth epoch right ?

>>It's a pity because we will be less likely to ever become something we can't already imagine.

The desire of mankind to control everything is its greatest strength and its greatest weakness.

The tricky part is to prevent AGI from developing goals of its own. You want it omnipresent and allknowing but dormant, and only react to inputs from the user.

But such thing cannot be tamed. As the AGI is democratized, it's bound to happen that someone somewhere will make it evolve goals.

The future of the human kind will be decided in a great measure by what kind of goals such an AGI will set first.

This is very interesting. This particular whiptail lizard carries 3 sets of DNA, instead of the regular 2 that the sexually reproducing species have.

This seems to be a hybrid species that resulted from the sexual reproduction of two different species many thousands years ago.

From the 3 sets of DNA, 2 are from the ancestral mother and 1 from the ancestral father, and using this trick, each generation manages to keep the whole DNA information of the original two without loosing it, like it happens in the sexual reproduction, and also provide enough genetic variation in newborns to allow evolution.

So I would say that basically, each individual is the child of that ancestral pair that generated this lineage.

I think it helps a lot to try to understand the universe from an engineering perspective, thus by posing the question "How would I build a universe?" The apparent obvious answer is : as an N dimensional matrix where each cell executes some code.

With such a setup, effects like gravity, are more probable to be emergent effects.

Another consideration is that in such a setup the only thing that matters is the state of the matrix, in other words there is no time, just iterations.

So my 2 cents are: gravity should be explained as an emergent phenomenon, and time should be removed from all equations that try to explain the underlying fabric of reality.