ahf8Aithaex7Nai

> in reality power determines justification

In fantasy land maybe, reality is more complex than can be summed up in a barroom cliché.

Not sure, but it's possible that Tailscale wasn't popular when I found Yggdrasil. That might be the whole answer. I discovered it because I’ve had an interest in mesh networks and alternative networking. I also have a preference for services that I can configure via text and control from the terminal. These things are so seamless on Linux that I’d find GUIs more of a hassle. Text files are easy to transfer between computers. And they’re so wonderfully explicit: you can just read what’s in them.

And I don't like it when I see the word “Pricing” on a project's website. It makes me suspicious. I can rely on gifts to the world like Linux, Debian, PostgreSQL, Apache, Nginx, Caddy, and Yggdrasil without any problems for decades. Commercial software products turn into shit sooner or later. I’m happy to pay for things, but paradoxically, software seems to be good and stay good only when it’s gifted.

I’m vaguely familiar with Tailscale from work. The licensing model restricts usage. The central control plane is closed-source. Someone built an open-source implementation. Then they hired the lead maintainer. It’s the usual business nonsense that could lead to them being bought by Google or Meta, or trying to monetize my metadata, or shoving ads down my throat, or doing something stupid with AI. I’d rather stick with Yggdrasil.

> Can you tell how you configured the tool to accomplish this?

The Yggdrasil client is installed on every computer. I'm running Debian. I have no idea how well it works on Mac or Windows. Yggdrasil assigns a key pair to each computer.

On the VPS, the config is modified in two places:

    Listen: [
      tcp://[::]:51350
    ]

This makes the VPS listen for Yggdrasil connections.

    AllowedPublicKeys: [ 
      pubkey1
      pubkey2
      pubkey3
      ...
    ]

This ensures that it only accepts connections from the specified computers. You can also leave that part out. But then any Yggdrasil client out there could connect to your VPS.

Note that this is only the config for the VPS.

I only make one change to the config of the other computers:

    Peers: [
      tcp://hub.mydomain.tld:51350
    ]

This causes them to actively connect to the VPS.

> Does it mean that the VPS has to be in-between all the traffic, or do we punch holes through the NAT for direct connections?

It depends. If the computers can reach each other on a local network, the Yggdrasil clients will automatically find each other and connect. To do this, you wouldn't have had to change anything in the default configuration. you would simply have had to install and start the Yggdrasil client on the computers.

With NAT in between, they wouldn’t connect on their own. But since they’re configured to actively connect to the hub in any case, they can still see each other via the hub and exchange data even in this scenario. Yggdrasil handles routing and NAT traversal. If both paths are available (locally or via the VPS), Yggdrasil defaults to the local path. But in the general case (where all other computers are behind NAT), all traffic would go through the VPS.

Special case: If only one of the two computers is behind NAT and you want a direct connection, then the accessible computer corresponds to the VPS in the configuration above.

I use Yggdrasil [0] to connect my computers. This ensures they are always connected within a flat, private IPv6 namespace. However, two computers cannot find each other if they are both behind NAT on different networks. At least one of them must be reachable by the other via TCP. That’s why I use the cheapest VPS I could find as a globally accessible Yggdrasil hub. I’ve been running it this way for many years now, and it works flawlessly. I can even assign names for the IPv6 addresses using regular DNS, which makes things very convenient.

I also run a few personal web services: Immich, Gitea, Bookstack, Jellyfin, and more. That cheap VPS couldn't handle it. I run the services on a computer in my home office. Caddy runs on the VPS with one proxy line per service. Data is, of course, exchanged via Yggdrasil. The domains for the various services all map to the VPS’s IP addresses. Caddy then handles the routing correctly. The system works simply. I can even run storage-intensive services like Jellyfin, and it only costs me a few euros for the VPS.

[0] https://yggdrasil-network.github.io/

I wonder what the early humans felt and thought when, for the first time, they followed that creative impulse to trace the outlines of wild horses and other animals on the stone walls of a cave by the light of a campfire or a torch. I don’t think they looked at them the way we look at pictures today. I think that seeing these depictions for the first time -- which they had just drawn themselves and in which they now recognized the animals out there -- must have been linked to powerful spiritual and religious feelings. People must have attributed animistic beliefs to these drawings, thinking that since their forms so clearly resemble those of animals, they must just as clearly embody something of the animals’ nature.

Since you seem to believe that simply dropping these terms has any value, you’ve already convinced me that someone who has studied philosophy most likely understands these things better than you do. It’s a bit like Ben Shapiro and logic. He likes to act as if it’s his area of expertise, but he only has a very amateurish grasp of it.

I think the problem is more that people doubt Musk's sincerity. And I wonder, to be honest, how it’s possible not to. Musk is no Wright and no Bell. He should be placed in the same category as people like Bernie Madoff, Charles Ponzi, and Gregor MacGregor. But your perspective contains another flaw: In hindsight, we see the big, daring projects that were successful. What we don’t see are the countless projects that failed. That skews the cost-benefit analysis a bit. Especially since large projects have far-reaching, often negative side effects. You can admire Hannibal for his crossing of the Alps, but no sane person would want to be one of the many soldiers who froze to death in the process.

Well, there's a pretty obvious answer that doesn't require a conspiracy theory, because the influence is well documented and, in many cases, isn't even denied or concealed by those being influenced.

I don't think these are the smartest people in the world. Yes, they're investing 1% to 2% of global GDP. My conclusion from this is that things are going to get pretty rough when the bubble bursts. I see what LLMs are capable of every day at work. Yes, it's impressive. But I also hear how the Silicon Valley bullshitters talk about it—and it just doesn't add up. You're welcome to see great rationality in the fact that they're all pouring all their capital into it. I see great irrationality there instead. Don't assume I'm not familiar with the subject just because I don't share your assessment.

Edit:

A quote from this discussion:

> I'm worried about what happens when an AI or a coalition of AIs starts optimizing reality instead of just optimizing chess boards.

That's the intellectual and analytical level at which fears about AI play out. And that's exactly the level at which the bullshitters stoke those fears. And you want me to take that seriously? Sorry, but that's ridiculous!

Yeah, yeah, sure, I'm ignorant. In any case, I recognize unfalsifiability when I see it. So it seems there's still some room for even more ignorance beneath my ignorance.

Can you refute the claim that the Second Coming of Christ is imminent? It’s very convenient to put forward something completely absurd and hypothetical and then expect the other side to refute it. You can have an LLM of your choice compile a list of prominent figures who hold the opposing view. The list is not empty. By the way, AI-2040 used to be AI-2027. I’m already looking forward to more updates.

Awesome!

> Just because you list up some type of random technology, doesn't make it an good argument.

In what way is this random? It's a chronology of the bullshit from the past few years. Also: easy to say in hindsight. The hype was there, and many people believed it. The press, in particular, just lapped up the claims the way a Labrador Retriever gobbles up whatever you put in front of it.

> We have opened up a potential pandoras box without knowing it.

No, we haven't. We have a new type of (I would say, inferential) computation that is truly astonishing because it can convincingly imitate language and, to a certain extent, intentional action. Feel free to read "generate" or whatever instead if you don't like "imitate." It won't wake up and murder you in your bed at night. It won't take over the world. It won't wipe out humanity. It won't fly to Mars and build data centers there. It won't maximize paperclips. It probably won't even take your job away. It has no consciousness. It has no intentions.

And if you look behind the curtain, all you'll see are a few very rich, unscrupulous guys who are stoking the debate with fearmongering because it's strategically advantageous for them to do so. Don't let them take you for a fool. Use GenAI to your advantage while tokens still cost a fraction of what they're actually worth, but ignore all that doomsday nonsense.

Two things:

1. If you reduce the criticism to personal dislike, you’ve built yourself a nice straw man.

2. Where’s the clear evidence? I actually see more evidence that the whole thing is already stagnating and that there won’t be much more to squeeze out of it.

One more thing:

Self-driving cars, the metaverse, Hyperloop, crypto/Web3/NFTs, AGI announcements: I’m so sick and tired of this nonsense. We should just ignore the ramblings of these crackpots.

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding here that many LLM advocates fall prey to. No one claims (anymore) that LLMs are completely useless. We agree that these tools can boost productivity. But there is a fundamental difference between human creativity and the statistical processing of large amounts of data in an artificial neural network. The latter can yield new insights for the person operating the LLM. But if the insight was more or less contained 1-to-1 in the training data, this confirms the observation that the original contribution of LLMs consists mainly of unearthing relevant facts, but is otherwise very limited when it comes to synthetic judgments (in the Kantian sense).

If the claims made by LLM manufacturers regarding these systems' own capabilities repeatedly turn out to be little more than a hoax, critics of this practice shouldn't simply be dismissed as Luddites. Instead, we should acknowledge that, despite their remarkable capabilities, these systems ultimately deliver far, far, far less than what the snake-oil salesmen—cruising through the valley in their Koenigseggs—repeatedly promise to the public and investors. Anyone who still hasn't grasped this, even though it's so obvious, should urgently focus more on what is actually the case and less on what is being sold to us as the future. Anyone who thinks that technological leaps can simply be extrapolated linearly like this is just naive!

I don't think that's the only reason. Here in Germany, you can also buy that fluffy white bread—usually wrapped in plastic—that's probably made that way. But most bread in Germany is still produced the traditional way, especially since it's often not pure wheat bread but rather rye bread or mixed-grain bread. Still, a real French baguette is unbeatable. Maybe it's the quality of the flour. But I'm sure it's mainly the very long resting time before baking. In my experience, that's also what makes pizza dough especially soft and flavorful.

> Both Altman and Zitron are the opposite of Frankfurt’s bullshitter, because they both appear to evince genuine care for the truth value of their position.

I can't really judge Zitron, but when it comes to Altman, I have absolutely no idea how you arrived at that assessment. In my view, he's clearly dishonest. I’ll remind you of his attempt to use government intervention to erect barriers to market entry for his competitors. Or his claims about AGI being just around the corner—claims that haven’t come true so far and were clearly aimed at investors. I’ve never heard a single statement from this man that struck me as honest.

I am even.

Source: Lifelong Prime

"App development has always been harder than web development for LLMs."

What do they mean by "always"? Am I old? Are there people out there for whom LLMs aren't the new thing?

I do think it's part of many people's vocabulary. It's a bit informal. And it's not a word you use every day. But it's definitely a word that gets used when the occasion calls for it, just like the related verb "verschlimmbessern."

"Enshittification" isn't the same thing. "Verschlimmbesserung" is when you try to fix a loose connection in a power cord and then no electricity flows at all, or when you try to fix a bad haircut with a trimmer and the haircut ends up looking even worse, etc.

(This is a reply to Der_Einzige.)

Way too sweeping for my taste. There’s obviously some truth to that. On the other hand, it’s way too easy and convenient to dismiss things as PSYOPs. To my grandfather, every LGBTQ Pride event is a PSYOP or a consequence of one. I was sitting in the audience at a political event last year. When the topic turned to union work, a young woman started rolling her eyes and rambling on about old white men. With this shift away from class solidarity toward identity-based division, I also find it hard not to see PSYOPs at work in the background. Postcolonial studies according to Said, Spivak, Chakrabarty, etc., are a case in point for me: critiques of universalism, critiques of power in “white” knowledge production, and decolonization debates. All of this comes from the Foucault school of thought and contains the same contradictions. But there are no better tools for undermining widespread, international solidarity and political organization.

It’s not enough to simply dismiss these things as PSYOPs. First, because the intended division still works. People influenced by these schools of thought won’t be easily convinced by an “Ackchyually” meme. Real, substantive persuasion is required here. Second, the fact that a thinker has been favored in some way does not invalidate their thinking. It’s worth taking a closer look to determine where criticism is warranted and where their ideas are useful and worth building upon.

Riding a motorcycle is one of the things in life that puts me in a good mood. I live in Germany. Traffic here seems to be pretty orderly. I don’t feel like the cars around me are putting me in danger. I have protective gear for cross-country rides and tours, but most of the time I ride without it, especially in town. It’s important not to equate the joy of riding with speed and recklessness. You should ride with foresight and defensively, without rushing unnecessarily and with great consideration for other road users. Then everything should be fine. I hope I haven’t jinxed it now and won’t get hit by a car tomorrow or something. Of course, something like that can always happen.

Right now, I only have a big street bike with over 70 hp. But I remember from back in the day how much fun small engines are, so I’m thinking about getting something with 125cc or even 50cc again for riding around town. A Honda CB125F, Super Cub, Skyteam Skymax 125, or Mash Fifty. 125cc is more than enough! 50cc is really quite small, but it still gets you from A to B with plenty of fun, and you avoid the mandatory vehicle inspection that’s otherwise required here for all vehicles every two years.

Definitely not! They just don't want to let you have the advantage. "I have to wait here in my Ram Truck, so you'd better wait too and not cut in line!"

So much effort for a self-righteous framework of contempt for certain people. In recent years, I have observed several people up close who uncompromisingly focus their lives on economic success. What these people have in common is a remarkable shallowness of character and intellect, which I also find reflected in this essay.

What's the problem with just forking them, then?

I'd like to see this problem solved in such a way that your group memberships are transitively applied to your access to agents. In other words: you shouldn’t be allowed to talk to an agent at all if, at a given point in time, that agent is or was in a group that you are not or were not in at that time. Does that make sense? I don’t know how practical this restriction is, but letting the AI manage such permissions on its own seems reckless to me.

I couldn’t agree more. I’ve lived in the city my whole life and have seen rents rise. That’s been extremely frustrating for me because I’ve been at the mercy of market trends and have worried about what would happen if, at some point, I didn’t earn as much anymore, or if rents rose so much that they became too expensive even for me. What would I do then? The worry that, despite a relatively good income, I might be at risk of poverty in old age because I have to hand over a good portion of my take-home pay to a landlord month after month is very frustrating in the long run.

A year ago, my partner and I bought a small house a short distance (40 minutes by car) from the city, and I moved into a much smaller, cheaper, and less central apartment in the city. I still spend a large part of my time in the city, but I’m also at the house regularly, especially on weekends. I’ve been much more relaxed ever since, because I know that I can give the city’s rental market the middle finger at any time and retreat to our house.

Unfortunately, yes. One real-world example was the former Linotype typesetters. As far as I know, they had union-negotiated benefits such as job security until retirement, early retirement, or generous severance packages. It just requires the appropriate political organization. It doesn’t happen on its own.

No, of course, you can only ever be certain of that in hindsight, through a historical lens. We’re not there yet. The question is simply whether Marx’s analysis was abstract and general enough at that point to still hold up in our present day, despite the changed circumstances. It’s surprisingly common for Marx’s analysis to become even more accurate later on than it was in his own time. But I can’t say whether anything has actually changed so fundamentally that it violates the underlying assumptions of his theory.

It’s already the case that I’m no longer paid to type source code into a computer, but rather to control agents that do that. There’s still plenty of demand for human expertise and labor. It’s possible that this will change as well. What gives me hope that I won’t be completely useless in the future is Marx’s labor theory of value, which states that the value of a commodity is determined by the amount of human labor time invested in it. His reasoning as to why this is the case makes sense to me, even though other economists argue against it. Marx also argues that technological progress, which offers a market advantage here and there in the short term, tends to become widespread in the medium and long term due to competitive pressure, so that in the end, all that remains is human labor time. Seen this way, it doesn’t matter how much better AI becomes. In the end, human labor always floats on top of it like a layer of fat on soup. This does not rule out the possibility that the human labor that remains will be shit, but preventing that is a matter of political action.