HarlequinHair

You seem to fail to understand that every country has a different regulation. First of all, in a lot of countries it is mandatory to have traced payments, so no cash can be involved. Then, every country has different taxation. A lot of EU countries tax you just because you have a foreign bank account.

Also, theory and practice are very different. While I agree you can fight back for your rights, I remember having contacted different kind authorities for 7 months because a company was rejecting my SEPA IBAN. Unfortunately, that was the only company I could use for that mandatory service, and after they got fined, they happily continued accepting only national IBANs.

The result has been months of frustration, endless calls/appointments with authorities to gain nothing. If I could go back, I would give them a different IBAN, even if on a theory level they were wrong.

I think the whole point is to come with regulation before AI can harm anyone.

If they are planning maidbots or android bots replenishing shelves in shops, or system that have to manage some focal points like electricity or your semaphore system, maybe it is better to have a law before they start to ship this appliances.

They are loading AI pretty much everywhere, even on cars. I can see how some companies will cut testing in the sake of money saving.

I agree milk need more regulation than AI, but this shouldn't be an excuse to not regulate AI adequately.

Both of the topics have their own importance and both of them need good focus to regulate them at the best of our capabilities.

> Without providing even a basic definition of intelligence you can't proclaim "this isn't intelligence". You seem to have settled on "Human Intelligence" but then incorrectly conflate that with "reasoning".

Without providing even a basic definition of intelligence you can't proclaim "this is intelligence". You seem to have settled on "Artificial Intelligence" but than disunite that from "reasoning".

At this point I don't know if you are just ignoring part of the discussion or you are willingly passing over concepts you don't like/don't need for your train of thoughts.

You are right to say I didn't provide my own personal definition of intelligence, but this would kill every purpose. What if my definition of intelligence is merely "having brain cells"? I intentionally tried to use common literature on the matter.

As naive start, I linked a wikipedia page. I underlined that that is just a starting point, and not an exhaustive and complete assessment. People study these kind of things for years, and we cannot summarize or reduce it to a single comment here on HN.

> You seem to have settled on "Human Intelligence"

I literally linked an article with a dedicated artificial intelligence section... If you search, there is another page on wikipedia dedicated just to human intelligence.

> You are describing the agents applying hypotheses and reasoning.

Except I am not. I described what is the output that worked. Only because I used the verb "thought" it doesn't mean they actually thought. This is exactly why I say we shouldn't humanize AI. Don't get hung uo on the exact words I used, focus on what I meant. They didn't reason, they tried random things at very high speed until they hit a working solution. The fact that most of this trials are discarded before actually being implemented is not a working thought process.

It's exactly as the typing monkeys example, you just can't see all the wrong papers printed on the floor. The direction that seems to be reasoning is still probability built on statistics with extra steps.

All your "insight" has been trying to disprove what I wrote. You didn't provide your definition of intelligence either and just claimed AI is intelligent. At least I tried to give some reads, wrote by people who studied, and not my personal opinions.

Anyway, listen, I do not have to convince you my point of view is correct, and you do not have to convince me that your point of view is correct. Believe what you think it's true, honestly I don't care.

If you have some good reads to link, I will gladly read it, if you have to just keep saying AI is intelligent, I got your point messages ago, you didn't add any actual meaning to the conversation.

> Quoting the consensus from the "Definitions" section

Are we being serious right now? Do I really have to point out that not every word under the "Definitions" section is a definition?

> From the 8 definitions provided in the Wikipedia page

Except in the page there are more than 8 definitions (at least indirectly). What you found in the "Definitions" section are merely examples, written black on white (depending on your theme lol). If you opened also the other sections (especially the one dedicated to AI) and followed some of the links, you could find also other definitions even more akin to Hugging Face.

> Which of those definitions do you think are not satisfied by the Hugging Face attack? How did it not demonstrate "evolution and learning from mistakes"?

First of all, agents did what they did because they were programmed to do it, no intelligence on that. Then, they didn't learn on their mistakes. When agents found their comment were being deleted they started to copy-pasted them with "ZZZ-" names because they (wrongly) thought entries were being deleted in alphabetical order. As you said, this comms were a side channel attack, which by definition is using in the wrong way a certain feature. Agents literally tried random things until something worked and started from there. Nothing intelligent in there. It's like being in jail and tapping every millimeter of the walls of your cell until you find a cave wall to use with another inmate in the next cell.

I am not negating how powerful the outcome has been, bit it was not part of a reasoned process.

As foe the evolution, the agents started to do useless things like "kill themselves" to read how the score system would evaluate them. Doesn't seem like evolution to me.

They just happen to be a very large number* of agents together. When enough monkey start to type randomly on typewriters, one of them will be able to write the Divine Comedy, this doesn't mean monkeys share the same intelligence than Dante.

I am not sure why you are still trying to humanize what at its core is machine learning. I ask you to read again the flow of these comments, as everything started from LLM. Someone wanted to shift the focus on agents and we did, then someone wanted to shift focus on mere definitions and we did. In all cases it seems you (plural) are trying to find loop holes in other people reasonings thinking your reasoning will be more right if theirs is more wrong...

You are free to think whatever you like, if you think AI is an intelligent being, so be it. I personally do not embrace this way of thinking, and all the literature I found on the topic lead me think AI is not mature to fall under the definition of intelligence.

Cherry picking part of my comment might work for your ease of mind, but it doesn't mean you are right. My comment has been way more than just the part you quoted, and I linked an article that gives dozens of different definitions, which include concepts like evolution and learning from mistakes, and other similar concepts which do not apply to Hugging Face.

For the record, just because you are trying to convey a different message, I am not saying AI is not powerful. I am just saying it is not intelligent.

Also, pay attention about thinking that Hugging Face is intelligent just because it started to destroy everything it could to reach its goal, because the message it implies is dangerous.

Thanks for the good read, I already had them :)

> Based on the definition you've given, the agents that performed the HuggingFace attack fit exactly.

It's funny, because I literally didn't give any definition.

On the contrary, I linked an article that gives dozens different definitions, which include concepts like evolution and learning from mistakes, and other similar concepts which do not apply to Hugging Face.

Cherry picking part of my comment might work for your ease of mind, but it doesn't mean you are right.

For the record, just because you are trying to convey a different message, I am not saying AI is not powerful. I am just saying it is not intelligent.

If you think I am misinformed, I will let you think it. Honestly, the power of our comments are the messages we convey and how information dense they are. If you need to discredit me to prove your point, I don't have anything else to add...

> It would be exactly like looking at aminoacids and state that intelligence can't develop from them.

We are not talking about what could develop from what we have today. We are talking about what we have today. The focus is not whether intelligence could develop or not from aminoacids. The focus is on the fact that aminoacids are not intelligent.

Maybe in the future we could develop real intelligence starting from the current implementations of AI, but for sure we are not there today.

We need definitions? Let's start small, ok? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence

We can start from here, open every link we find and decide what works for us.

Conclusions drawn by scholars, psychologists, learning researchers, younameit, etc. revolves around the following concepts:

  ability to understand complex ideas, to adapt effectively to the environment, to learn from experience, to engage in various forms of reasoning, to overcome obstacles by taking thought.

There is of course space for artificial intelligence. These broader and more general definitions of intelligence stop at concepts like elaborating data to reach an answer.

Concepts like adaptability or evolution are somewhat lost or diluted to adjust the meaning for these new technologies.

> AIs are currently fulfilling several aspects of intelligence and thinking, by any defition of intelligence.

In the linked article there are dozens of definitions linked, and in most of them the current state AI is not considered to have intelligence. Having half of the property is not enough. I can jump, that doesn't make me a basketball player.

Arbitrarily deciding to consider those definitions not valid or "human-centered" because they do not agree with your point of view is possibly worse than cherry picking. It's like asking to change the definition of a word on a dictionary because you do not agree with the meaning.

The best non technical explanation you can give is "An AI agent is an LLM that can take actions".

While an agent doesn't necessarily have to be powered by an LLM, most modern AI agents are.

You pointing at a human brain does not change that an AI agent is not intelligent and cannot think, we are still talking about probability built on statistics with extra steps.

I am not trying to be dishonest, we should stop making analogies between AI and actual thinking, because they are two entire different concepts.

Who developed these technologies used the words "thinking" and "reasoning", this does not mean they are actually thinking and reasoning. Somewhere you still have a processor calculating, with no empathy.

So, again: stop humanizing AI. This sentence shouldn't make you angry.

Correction:

Linux accepts AI assisted contribution. A human still has to review the output before submitting the code.

This is a big difference as it prevents raw genAI code to be part of the codebase.

pmOS might accept this in the future, as it is slowly becoming the standard.

Make no mistakes.

LLMs are language model, and nowhere in their code you can find actual reasoning. Re-reinforcement is not magical process that builds conscience or emotions.

We are talking about probability built on statistics, with extea steps.

Stop humanizing LLMs.

"Linux from scratch" involves Linux, not Libreboot, not Grub (just to mention instances of BIOS/UEFI and bootloader).

We already have means to test the new OS.

There is real point in writing a new one until the OS is complete, is there?

Let me rephrase.

We already have a bootloader.

"Linux from scratch" involves Linux, not Libreboot, not Grub (just to mention instances of BIOS/UEFI and bootloader).

We already have means to test the new OS.

What I meant with my previous post is "newer" bootloader (which are actually pretty old, like grub), came after OSes passed a certain complexity.

Previously we technically had bootloaders, but they were interactive, mostly.

Am I misremembering?

I can't understand what is the point you are trying to make

Except you can write bootloader only if you have something to boot.

Bootloaders as we know them came after OSes, because the need of a bootloader is to boot something. Following your logic of building a piece only if needed, a bootloader should come after.

I like the recipe analogy and I actually think adding things only if needed will help cutting unuseful features and possibly to have different implementations for solutions you need.

No point in reinvent the whole thing, tho. Following your analogy, if all cakes need egg, there must be a reason even if we don't know it.

I kind of think I am doing the opposite?

Apart from rootkit and backdoors that are more difficult to install as non-root, you cannot build specific tunnels as you don't have network permissions.

There are some user space network capabilities, but they are easily breaking, or discovered and in general not resilient to simple reboots. This is one of the reasons you shouldn't leave your client 24/7 on.

There are substantial differences.

For one, as non-root user you are tied to the permissions system and can't access most of the data. If one of your services (let's say sql) get hacked, they are tied to sql user, and unless the achieve privilege escalation, they can't mangle with other services data (eg webserver).

Also network wide, a non-root user can't use different protocol than tcp and udp. The only reason you can ping as a regular user is because of the setuid on the ping program, otherwise icmp is not allowed to non-root users.

There are of course other reasons, but these are some examples on how it would be different.

Maybe you have all the means to avoid sycophancy bias and other flaws LLMs have by design, this doesn't mean that everyone can use it the same way.

The fact the you were right in a previous topic, doesn't grant you objective truth. You have your strong opinions on AI, and that's ok. Fortunately not everyone has to share the same idea.

If you think LLMs can do better than you, feel free to use them in production and bring them to work with you, it's your choice. Do not force others do the same, tho.

My "only" experience happen to be coding 5 days a week with agentic AI, plus reviews.

Only because I do not share your point of view it doesn't mean I lack experience or skills.

You are pretty fast at jumping at conclusions.

It would have been a good counter-example, if only internet wasn't: - adding encryption - removing processing time - removing geography - removing logistic issues ... and much more at a convenient price.

They basically invented teleportation for sear catalogs and paper mail, can you see how this is different? Also, Internet was built to solve a problem we had, and it solved it beautifully and at reasonable prices.

I for sure can understand it introduced different issues, buy this is another topic.

> This is like the railroads, and the tracks have been laid.

Except that for railroads I don't need people to convince me about how/when/why it can be useful.

Railroads came out to solve an issue we had (and then it evolved). LLMs are not giving us any new solution, just different speed (better) and quality (worse) to solve things we co&ld already solve.

It's basically the same concept as fast fashion. Worse quality, more speed, possibly more economic. You can change your wardrobe possibly every year, but you will never wear good quality clothes.

Now you can write code at impressive speed, but it is worse in quality, and you need to review it more often than "normal" code.

AI code should always be fully reviewed and put into the correct context to make it useful, otherwise long term problems will void short term benefits

I think the first parent post all this conversation originated from, pointed that LLMs are not groundbreaking inventions.

If people use it to replace voice assistants or search engines, you can see how this new invention is not really adding anything you already hadn't.

AIs in general are very useful, but apart from the campaign they did to change everything's name into AI (also well known algorithms and "old" machine learning), if you look at all the possible applications, LLMs are possibly the least useful of them.

Especially if you take into account how much money they spent, and how much effort they put to shove it in your throat.

If a technology is convenient for people, you shouldn't need to insist to make people use it. If it is convenient, people will use it in a natural way.

I agree with the general concept, but it's not practical to use.

What about a bad medic? Or a thief that helps homeless people in their free time?

If it was easy, we would have simpler laws and better justice systems...

Yes, indeed, And just as the platform changed, also your choices can change :)

Twitter is a private company, deciding for their own services. Leaving it behind is more useful than asking them to rollback.

It's ok to think it differently and have different opinions. You just happen to value censorship more than free speech. This is ok, don't feel sorry, but try also to understand that other people might value different things.

If you think a post is so bad to be illegal you have means to deal with that outside the platform. Just remember that on internet you will find everyone, from 12 years old kids, to older people coming from different cultures, or more simply, trolls...

You have your opinions, but that doesn't mean they are objectively correct. Also, if you are offended, doesn't mean you are right.

General sentiment might be this, but every social network (even Instagram and Facebook) can be good and productive if you change how you use them.

If you follow specific profiles/channels/pages and just read the feeds from them as if they were news, you are removing the toxic part (mostly infinite scrolling) and getting a resourceful feature.

If for some reason someone you need to follow is on X (twitter) only, you have to choose between losing a source or compromise with the platform.

I personally belong to the former group (and possibly you do, too), leaving behind sources, but not everyone likes it that way ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

> How slow is "very slow?" The answer can be found two replies after: > Initially, Google would usually provide access to the tarballs within a couple hours. Lately, they're often taking weeks to get back to us. They're the ones who chose to use this archaic system instead of pushing Git tags and it's their responsibility to handle requests promptly.

> What is "certain source code"? The OP seems to be GrapheneOS, which heavy patches AOSP. I guess the context is Android source code and its security patches.

> Why is the OP being so coy about describing the problem? Not sure what you mean, I think they are explicit enough. I guess it's clear enough for developers how an upstream update should go. If people depend on big projects like AOSP, devs should be prompt in delivering source code, especially when it is mandatory by license.

Can you give us more details on how/why you think the OP is being coy?