iameli

I get such an incredible volume of malicious crypto spam on Discord and Twitter every single day. They're constantly creating new sites as things get banned, new accounts with legitimate-looking traffic, custom art and even videos for the fake "airdrops" they're planning. And FTX is just keeping their billions of dollars unencrypted in S3 buckets. Hey scammers, wouldn't hacking into that be a better use of your time???

ty, edited

Been using k3s in production for nearly four years now and would recommend it to anyone. Super lightweight and easy to deploy. Opinionated about stuff I don't care about while allowing for customization of network stack, backing database, and ingress controller if you want to do it yourselves. Their embedded etcd is way, way easier to set up than a custom etcd distribution.

We've been using k3s' embedded etcd for as long as its existed, and it's great. Setting up the etcd cluster is dramatically simplified; let the first node generate a token and feed it to all the other nodes. Tons of other advantages to k3s; the single-binary deploy process, the built-in networking stack (which you can secure with Wireguard out-of-the-box), built-in ingress controller if you want one.

There isn't one — the official docs give instructions for kubeadm, kOps, and kubespray. k3s would be an alternative to those.

Any of y'all worked at Google? I'm fascinated by the internal processes that would lead to something like this happening with no warning for any of their users. Everywhere I've worked before someone would be like "hey we should probably send an email at least"

The use of the term "bigger" here is frustrating. Mass or volume?

We're rarely under any obligation whatsoever to be kind, or empathetic, or caring, or socially conscious. Nonetheless, I aspire to be those things. So if I were writing a JPEG encoder, and I'm picking a test image, I could:

1. Use the Lenna, which originates from Playboy, which Wikipedia describes as controversial "on both technical and social grounds, and many journals have discouraged or banned its use", and where the subject in question has recently requested to cease its use, or

2. Use anything else.

I'd choose 2. Seems like an easy decision.

Lena has said, in the linked video, that she would prefer her picture stop being used in this way. That ought be a sufficient condition for us, as developers, to stop using it. I'm distressed to find comment threads here are talking about copyright or complaining about "virtue signalling." You don't have to agree with her to respect her wishes.

Did you watch the video? She said that she would like to retire from having her picture used in this way.

Okay. Same question I asked elsewhere in this thread; care to make a prediction about a problem that won't ever get solved by an LLM? We know they can write essays, create art, write code — what's something they'll never do?

Your argument is that my brain is more energy-efficient than ChatGPT, therefore... ChatGPT is incapable of "understanding"?

I dunno - I hear what you're saying about how it seems to lose track of things over long conversations. But part of the mental machinery that it lacks is the ability to learn from those conversations and insert new ideas into its base model; every new conversation starts fresh. It has no long-term storage; it can't "keep notes" for itself, and we don't give it the ability to alter its fundamental state based on new input after we're done feeding it training data.

I guess we're mostly agreeing, because those things are probably part of the "other mental machinery" we'd want to provide it, but I'd push back a little on "real comprehension". It kinda seems to me like the "comprehension engine" is working just fine, it's the structure we've built around that comprehension engine that's limiting it right now.

Sure, I think buy this interpretation. As long as we can agree that bogosort and quicksort are both still sorting algorithms. My brain definitely has some structures that are useful for me understanding the world that are more immediately useful than trillion dimensional token soup.

But I'm also not convinced that it's impossible those structures could be successfully emulated by quadrillion dimensional token soup. And a lot of folks seem to be convinced that it's some kind of fundamental impossibility.

ChatGPT's attempt: https://gist.github.com/iameli/d9a5b715ec9baa5b11063888e054d...

Are those two responses enough to say it's invented a language? Probably not. But it's already farther along than I would have gotten if you asked me to do such a thing.

If I kept prompting it for hours, I bet it would start to contradict itself and lose track of the rules it had already established, but so would I. If I were actually inventing a language, I'd take months and keep extensive cross-referenced documentation on grammar and syntax and vocabulary. We don't _let_ ChatGPT do that, it has no mechanism for persisting its ideas like that. But like... neither would I if you took away my notebook and the parts of my brain that persist long-term memory.

I guess my interpretation here - I see differences in _capabilities_, but not differences in actual _intelligence_.

I can't claim to understand everything my brain is doing, but accepting input and filtering it through a bunch of neuron chains to result in some kind of output sounds like "statistical analysis" to me.

You seem convinced that ChatGPT will never have "actual intelligence" — care to make a prediction about something that LLMs will never accomplish? We know they can write code, write essays, generate artwork, and play chess. What's a task that requires "actual intelligence"? Parenting a child? Running for President? Making a steak sandwich?

People seem so convinced of this and I just don't get it. I'm seeing this comment through my eyeballs, generating some pertinent text in my brain, and outputting it back out. But so many people seem convinced convinced this process is something radically, fundamentally, irreducibly different than what ChatGPT is doing internally, and I don't get why.

Is it because I have a consciousness with an internal narrative and ChatGPT does not? Because that seems like more of a result of how we've wired up ChatGPT to operate than a fundamental structural difference; nothing stopping us from making ChatGPT talk to itself in its brain to generate synthesis.

I thought this too until the most recent xkcd book taught me that if a black hole is big enough it's actually possible to pass through the event horizon without getting torn apart. It's a question about soup. Good stuff.

And so ends my daily use of Twitter. I still haven't been able to get into Mastodon in the same way, but if Ivory is as good as Tweetbot was it might bring me around.

I started using Firefox as my daily browser when the Firefox Photon redesign launched and reluctantly switched to Brave when they removed it. RIP to the best looking default browser skin of all time.

How am I _operating_ it? I deployed a smart contract and walked away. If I don't leave myself a backdoor, there's literally nothing I can do to prevent anyone in the world from interacting with the contract.

Everyone that runs an Ethereum full node; they're the ones operating the laundering service. They run servers that store all the transaction records on their hard drives and do the processing of the ZK proofs allowing funds to be redeemed. Those are the people you have to stop if you want the service to go away. In this scenario, I as the contract deployer can do nothing whatsoever to stop them.

Using it to actually launder money would be illegal, sure. What crime am I committing by deploying the contract?

I'm not, like, against the idea of sanctioning North Korean hacking groups. But the regulators here aren't really prepared for the crypto endgame.

I could clone Tornado.Cash's contract code in half an hour; would my new deployment also be sanctioned?

What about if Ethereum migrated to some kind of ZK-EVM and _all_ of the transactions are suddenly private and untraceable? Other chains already have some of these properties.

I dunno. I don't think I particularly want to live in a world where it's essentially impossible to regulate money. But I don't really see how to avoid it anymore.

Oracle sales has been all over us for many months to try and move over to their cloud offering but all I ever hear are stories like this. Pass.

Generally when a product doesn't work for half an hour every day, with no acknowledgement from support or fix, I would hesitate to use the word "premium." I've also lived with 12 Mbps DSL; at least it was rock solid 24/7.

Looks like YouTube has reinstated, though Google engineers apparently aren't smart enough to propagate such a change in less than 48 hours: https://twitter.com/TeamYouTube/status/1546419223466999809

It's such a good thing this is the only mistake they made, and no legitimate users have ever been taken down by this mechanism!

We (Livepeer) switched to self-hosted Loki recently for this and couldn't be happier. Completely S3-backed, cheapest option possible, adjusting your retention is as easy as setting an expiration rule on the bucket. Queries are as fast as the hardware you feed it 'cause it's just all your nodes doing a brute-force search.

Query language is a bit of a PITA compared to some of the other options, but you get used to it.

All software has bugs; I'm not mad at all that this silly test case was flagged incorrectly. The truly infuriating part is "A review cannot be requested for this restriction."

Translation: "We have no idea if you actually own this content or not, but it would be _way too expensive_ for us to find out for sure! So you're out of luck, but don't worry — it's all worth it so we can make sure children can't stream Marvel movies from Google Drive! Thank you for your contributions to Disney+'s bottom line."

Hrmph. I went to "past" and clicked back through the last couple of days, searching for the word "Audacity". Wonder why these didn't show up.

They well might be, realistically. Other similarly-atrocious sites that were eventually shut down by Cloudflare had a lot of trouble finding new hosts.