jscd

Honestly, I'm less concerned with the initial wait and more concerned about how this is run entirely through Google Play Services, leaving Google with the ability to alter the deal next time they have another benevolent security decree.

Citogenesis specifically refers to a citation loop. This is just lying on the internet

Radicle has been one of those projects that had seemed interesting, but something always bothered me about it. (I think it was very highly tied to the cryptocurrency movement for a while? And the Cyphernet GitHub org seems to have rebranded from a DAO?)

This, unfortunately, kinda seals the deal on never using this thing, at least not for anything I intend to keep private. This isn't about proficiency in some protocol which has XYZ footgun: they never checked that payloads were encrypted. Ridiculous.

This is explicitly the problem people notice with LLMs. The text they produce sounds fine only if you are so ignorant of the subject that you can’t properly read it yourself. That’s not a “boon” it’s a flaw.

Please link some of the mathematical research which concludes takeover of Earth’s resources by a superintelligent agent is “very likely.”

This is a very token-brained take. The length of a work has no bearing whatsoever on its comprehensibility.

I truly don't get why people have so much reverence for Pluto. And, unlike something like "fruit," which has a botanical and culinary definition which serve different purposes, I really don't get why anyone would care about the non-scientific definition of planet. Maybe I'm just ignorant here: what's the cultural significance of some celestial object being considered a planet?

being selective about who you provide free services to makes you an activist group?

As a second factor of authentication, a one-time passcode is supposed to be “something you have,” which is still satisfied when stored in a password manager. It no longer serves as a preventative in the event your password manager is compromised, but it’s still fine if any individual password is.

They can provide text which contains thoughts, reasoning, and empathy, but is that evidence of them having thoughts, reasoning, or empathy?

To paraphrase the Chinese room argument: Put me in a room with infinite time, paper, pencils, filing cabinets, and give me an English language list of instructions for doing all the neural-net calculations required to run an LLM. Slide your prompt under the door, and, after doing all the calculations, I will slide the next word out, and so I will repeat until the response is done.

In this thought experiment, I'm just following the instructions. So, in this case, what is doing the "thinking" or "reasoning" or "empathy" here?

> And with software it’s even harder as software was never targeted at the mass.

Do products like Adobe Photoshop or Microsoft Office Suite not count as “targeted at mass?” People—normal people—absolutely used to pay for software before SaaS took hold.

I don’t think the problem is that normal people don’t want to buy ““artisan software”” but that people are so cynical about software companies that giving them any money at all is asking to have the rug pulled out from under you.

wow absolutely not

> The law is currently forcing these companies to destroy the books after scanning them.

No, the law is stopping them from digitally sharing their scans. They are perfectly capable of reselling or donating or storing the books they buy. (Wasn’t Amazon originally a book seller?)

Sorry, is your stance seriously that authors and publishers should digitize and freely distribute their work, at their own expense?

Also, who’s forcing AI companies to “ingest” books in such a destructive way?

Also also, if there’s one thing I’ve learned from AI scrapers, it’s that they’d never scan the exact same thing multiple times at the expense of public access to the resource.

I find it very interesting that, from what I understand, the LLM use isn’t actually what’s at issue. It’s really just that he worked backwards, beginning with a conclusion and attempting to find evidence towards that end. The LLM chat logs are just a uniquely astounding piece of evidence towards his incompetence.

It's not the most elegant thing ever, but I've been using (self-hosted) WoodpeckerCI and it's been dead simple. It doesn't have many bells and whistles, but honestly I think that's good. Forced me to put complex behavior in better systems as opposed to doing bash scripts in YAML.

Am I crazy to think this title is just incorrect? They say AI reports are welcome, not fixes.

I don't think the "would not exist if I hadn't created it" argument really works. If I delegate a project to someone else, and they do the project, does that mean I did it? In my mind, I could comfortably say I managed it, or I designed some parts of it, but I really couldn't take the credit for actually doing it. You wanted it to be done, so you asked someone to do it.

If anything, I would say your conclusion should be flipped: you didn't really do the "making," but you can still be proud of what you _did_ do: provide direction and a vision for a solution to a problem.

Hot tip: if you disable JS on the site, then nothing but the title loads and you can disregard it without wasting all those CPU cycles.

Does that change anything? We're still relying on OpenAI's account of where the LLM was running, what sandboxing restrictions were in place, the task it was given, etc.

Even assuming they're telling the truth about what this LLM's goal was, they still have motivation to be less than honest about the state of their "highly isolated environment." Either this model was really operating in a truly locked down intranet and it really did a series of highly complex lateral movements and privilege escalations in order to escape it... Possible, but incredible.

_Or_, the "highly isolated environment" was less secure than they make it out to be, and now they have to choose between a) admitting they let these models with security precautions disabled run in YOLO mode, with the only significant precaution being a third-party proxy server, _and_ their security team didn't notice a huggingface blitz happening on their network during a weekend, all of which seems reckless and negligent; or b) lying about the state of their internal security, dodging accusations of irresponsibility, and now they get to also claim their product is so advanced they can't even contain it.

I mean yes, you never “owned” the IP, but this doesn’t change anything. You also never owned any movie on a DVD, song on a vinyl, or text in a book. Software is a strange beast in the world of copyright law, but, at least in my lay understanding, video game discs still have had protection under the first-sale doctrine, which means you were always allowed to resell, rent, give away, or destroy your copy. Ownership of the medium is still something.

Maybe not in the millions, but Meta is certainly not free from bloodshed. For example, in efforts to promote "engagement," they left the rollout of Facebook in Myanmar dangerously unmoderated, and (at least according to claims by Amnesty International[1]) are at least partially responsible for the genocide of the Rohingya there, which saw the tens of thousands of deaths.

[1]: https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa16/5933/2022/en/

First, I agree it's cool that Atari, with all its ability to completely screw small projects over, didn't do that in this case.

But, at the same time, I find it interesting that "emulations and clones" are considered entitlement (in a derogatory sense), but copyright protection is not. Before 1976 in the US, the _maximum_ copyright term was 56 years, and that would require filing for an extension from the default of _only 28 years_.

I think it's easy to forget that copyright as we know it is not set in stone. Historically, after 28 years, most works became public domain and that meant you could do literally whatever you want with it and it would not be legally stealing at all. I think we as a society have forgotten what it means to have a public domain.

Wow, impressively insufferable

I can kinda see your point, especially if the meaning is still obvious and the tone is inviting you to participate, but I think you're misunderstanding what "privilege" means here.

It isn't a superior "flexing their privilege" over their subordinates. The superior doesn't care. They don't even think about it. Because they have power over you, they can just speak gibberish and you have to figure it out. In my opinion, a good boss should have enough respect for me to not waste my time by forcing me to decipher a thought they didn't even read before sending.

Tailscale itself only uses sqlite[1], so I’m not sure if that really holds in this case.

[1]: https://tailscale.com/blog/database-for-2022

Other way around. To quote the article:

> To conduct the literature review, the sugar industry paid the Harvard scientists the equivalent of $50,000 in 2016 dollars [...]

So it was actually about ~$5,000 in 1965 dollars.

This is not providing the same functionality as a "traditional VPN," in the sense that it does not do anything to your traffic going to the wider internet. With popular VPN services, they are an encrypted tunnel for all your internet traffic (some use the same protocol, WireGuard), but at the end of the tunnel they decrypt the message and send it to whatever website you requested, which is exactly what can cause those privacy issues you describe.

In this case, though, it creates an encrypted tunnel _only between your own devices_. This allows you to connect to all your devices, home desktop, phone, laptop, as if they were on the same network, allowing you to do fairly sensitive things like remote desktop without having to expose your machine to the public internet or deal with firewall rules in the same way.

Assuming this project is legitimate, then the only traffic this service would even touch would be those between your own devices, nothing related to public internet requests. And, on top of that, the requests should be encrypted the entire way, inaccessible to any devices other than the ones sending and receiving the requests.

There are many caveats and asterisks I could add, but I think that's a fairly straightforward summary.

Yea this seems to work great. Let's take a look at the entry on the site itself:

https://encyclopedai.stavros.io/entries/encyclopedai-artific...

> Early prototypes of EncyclopedAI emerged in 2007 when librarian Margaret Chen noticed that her pet parrot could predict which encyclopedia volumes patrons would request by observing their facial expressions. This observation led to the first algorithmic models, which attempted to replicate avian pattern-recognition through neural networks. The subsequent integration of natural language processing in 2011 marked the system’s transition from experimental prototype to operational deployment across major American public libraries.

> The system’s backbone consists of distributed servers housed primarily in repurposed bowling alleys, which Chen discovered provided optimal acoustic conditions for server cooling. EncyclopedAI’s training dataset comprises approximately 2.3 billion encyclopedia entries, supplemented by 400 million hours of recorded reference desk conversations and—controversially—dreams reported by participating librarians.

This is honestly very disappointing. Not using LLMs, but the complete lack of transparency about their usage. You can already see in the repository issues related to hallucinations[^1]. This is _fine_, but not if you seem to obscure the fact that these can be very, very wrong. This seems to only be mentioned in the very brief loading screen and at the bottom of the about page[^2]. Also, apparently many of the "core RSS feeds" are just... reddit[^3]???

For me, this is only useful as a curated list of news feeds (and subreddits I guess), but nothing more.

[1]: https://github.com/kagisearch/kite-public/issues/97#issuecom...

[2]: https://kite.kagi.com/about

[3]: https://github.com/kagisearch/kite-public/blob/main/core_fee...