18,127 karma · joined June 2, 2013
Oh sure. In a few weeks the BBC will be drenched in poppy pins. I'll wager my left nut they won't edit those out.
The sandboxes don't need internet access to be kept up to date. They just need to be writable by something with internet access. There's a million ways of doing this. Run things under a hypervisor. Have a PXE boot server in your data center that serves an "updater" boot image, after performing host attestation. Or if you really want them to "update themselves", physically plug em in for the update, physically unplug them the rest of the time, and don't run updates during agentic testing.
>or may need to be monitored
The sandboxes don't need internet access to be monitored, they just need to be readable by something with internet access. Like a hypervisor, KVM. or a webcam pointed at the screen, in roughly ascending order of paranoia.
>or the sandboxes may need to updated
Did this one already! See above
>or they may be connected to specific services
That's just "not airgapped" rephrased.
This is just off the top of my head and I'm no infrastructure engineer. OpenAI saying "it's too hard" is a major cop out. The real reason is that they show no signs of actually giving a shit about AI "safety".
Eh. It's a surprisingly direct adaptation of "With Folded Hands" by Jack Williamson. Even the descriptions of the robots match.
If talking cucumber was too pedestrian for you, we could add stipulations until your intuition collapses. Perhaps, starting next week, the Earth begins to spontaneously turn into raspberry custard on Tuesdays. Perhaps the entire universe turns to custard! Just think of it - billions of lightyears of custard in every direction. Whoops, did I say billions? Too grounded! Let's make it a googolplex. And a single lone piece of rhubarb, floating somewhere in the middle of it all...
...sorry, couldn't resist. Joking aside, while we can quibble about the boundaries of the possible, the fact remains that there are boundaries - at least, if we're still talking about known physics. No evolution of the universal wave function will lead to a world where pi suddenly equals 3.
For better or for worse, humanity has chosen the path of gods. We'd all better start thinking like gods.
There's a possible future where you're President, but no possible future where you're a talking cucumber. This intuitive fact gets overlooked in pop culture explorations of Many Worlds, such as Everything Everwhere All At Once, which has ridiculous parallel universes which obey the rather more relaxed rules of "anything the writers can think of that looks silly", rather than "anything which can conceivably happen".
Sure. Wayyy more secure to shovel federal data into OpenAI /s
And in the general case, memory reads do depend on distance. Hence:
> In practice there are multiple levels of cache, and cached reads will be much, much faster than main memory reads.
This is why we have the cache levels in the first place. And the hierarchy continues: L1, L2, RAM, block of spinning rust in the closet, "the cloud" somewhere... There is only so much storage you can fit close to core! More = physically bigger = physically further away.
Sure, within a level might feel like constant time. But that's because the optimal case for that level is slowed down to match the suboptimal cases. The step discontinuities in access time are caused by our inability to engineer a system to manage this tradeoff continuously, not a fundamental law.
>I had this vision of my entire family using the applications I installed.
>occasionally asking me to install something new
If the model doesn't give them sovereignty, why should they care?
You can't convince me that shepherding an LLM to re-implement a library function involves less "engineering" than just... calling the function.
"Hologram" is one of those words that has a wide variety of overlapping meanings. You can be a strict prescriptionist about it and insist that a real hologram involves laser light, interference patterns, 3D scene replication, phase preservation etc, but there will always be something that doesn't quite meet your definition that nevertheless is called a "hologram" by large numbers of people, even expert optical scientists:
A digital holographic stereogram prints an array of hogels (holographic pixels); the hogels themselves are holograms, but are mutually incoherent across the plate. When implemented to the highest level, the result is perceptually and behaviorally indistinguishable from an analog hologram.
A rainbow hologram (such as are found on credit cards) has single parallax only - it certainly does not capture all the properties of any particular electromagnetic field. No purity here, it's just a nifty tech for making things look 3D that happens to exploit wave interference. And everyone calls those holograms.
A scratch hologram is, to a first approximation, an extremely coarse version of a rainbow hologram, made by hand by engraving curved grooves in a reflective material. Now we're away from lasers and wave interference, and for this we sacrifice color - but geometrically we are still dealing with directional microreflections on a surface. Hologram? Depends who you ask.
Lenticular holograms use refraction rather than diffraction to achieve essentially the same imaging model as a rainbow hologram, but in a decidedly less finicky way, at the expense of some resolution. The same imaging data could be used to make a lenticular or a rainbow hologram. No lasers, no diffraction. Hologram? Depends who you ask...
My advice, as someone who has worked with holograms for a decade, is to give up. Saying "AKTUALLY Tupac/Abba isn't a hologram" gets old after the 1000th time. In the real world, "hologram" means "intangible optical simulacra", regardless of how it was achieved. If you want more precision than that, you have to specify the actual technology - Denisyuk, rainbow, lenticular, etc...
When someone asks "can you make a hologram of this", you don't lecture them on optical physics. You say "sure, you want the expensive kind or the plastic kind?"
Oh hey, I have worked in exactly this business (taking people's random 3D models and bullying a rendering pipeline into feeding a digital holographic printer). It's hard, for many reasons. Mainly it's that holograms are expensive in materials, labor, and capital outlay (adding up to several k just for something the size of a piece of paper), and mass production of digital holograms isn't really possible without massive further outlay - writing them is time consuming, and copying them is fraught. It's like being a graphic design / print workshop, except everything is way more fiddly and expensive and nobody wants your product.
Analog holograms are a bit more tractable. But that's even more niche on the consumption end.
(Of course, all this is up in the air. If LLMs become commodities, the situation becomes very complex; the information flow doesn't get quite so consolidated, but it still becomes impossible to tractably analyze, as all the LLMs train off each other)
Two options:
- You genuinely believe that all living organisms have equal moral weight. You are either a Jainist who sweeps the floor in front of your feet to avoid treading on an insect, or else a callous murderer who would dispatch an annoying human as easily as an annoying fly.
- You are a sane person who does not in fact believe that, and this comment was some sort of bad faith "gotcha".
But to respond to your point, most everywhere is great if you're rich enough. Saudi Arabia is pretty rad if you happen to be in House of Saud.
First rule of digital sovereignty: all software you don't control will be used against you.
Your observation: Online, Europeans assert they have a better quality of life than Americans, while Americans do not assert the reverse
Your conclusion: "idk maybe they're lying???"