justonenote

We have messed up the terms.

We already have AGI, artificial general intelligence. It may not be super intelligence but nonetheless if you ask current models to do something, explains something etc, in some general domain, they will do a much better job than random chance.

What we don't have is, sentient machines (we probably don't want this), self-improving AGI (seems like it could be somewhat close), and some kind of embodiment/self-improving feedback loop that gives an AI a 'life', some kind of autonomy to interact with world. Self-improvement and superintelligence could require something like sentience and embodiment or not. But these are all separate issues.

> it all rests on (relatively) simple mathematics. We know this is true. We also know that means it has limitations and can't actually reason information.

What do you imagine is happening inside biological minds that enables reasoning that is something different to, a lot of, "simple mathematics"?

You state that because it is built up of simple mathematics it cannot be reasoning, but this does not follow at all, unless you can posit some other mechanism that gives rise to intelligence and reasoning that is not able to be modelled mathematically.

ita disconcerting to see such naivety around security issues on hn.

not that windows is keeping passwords in plaintext, but that it's not immediately obvious that un-sandboxed apps that run on your windows/linux/mac desktop have virtually unlimited other avenues to capture passwords given they can read the entire state of other windows at the very least.

I dunno maybe macos is slightly better, and wayland definitely has some things which are better about this, but desktop os and $locally_installed_app means $locally_installed_app basically has root, there is just an exploding amount of vectors.

I'd like to see a linux based distrubution use some of the sandboxing in Android, it would be a order of magnitude improvement over what is going on now.

Things are very black and white these days, no room for shades.

Fine, that's still extra information.

More accurately in the context of the comment, its "Im gonna be an asshole to you because I think you don't have the life experience I do", which is at least, some kind of signal.

I wasn't the original responder btw.

Do you honestly think an insult never brought about a change in a person? You never think a carefully landed and accurate insult made someone reconsider their position?

Weird, because in my experience, that has happened to every single person I know and myself. Whether it's at the start or end of a comment is not really the point.

No comment.

It was for effect.

Maybe you'd prefer if we were all maximally polite drones but that's not how humans are, going back to GPs point, and I don't think it's a state than anyone truly wants either.

That would be removing information and strictly worse that including it.

Communication is about communicating information, sometimes a terse short and aggressive style is the most effective way. It activates neurons in a way a paragraph of polite argumentation doesn't.

Where did he signal this?

Once you find the quote, go onto politco (a not exactly pro-trump site) fact-checking service to get the full context.

The FBI and 51 Intelligence officials signed a document saying Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian disinformation 2-3 weeks before the last election, when in fact it was actually Hunter Biden's laptop.

Is this a true statement or not?

Whereas you are an "Evil_Saint" ?

Hopefully you don't get to power yourself, with that kind of username, and all your book knowledge.

So you prefer corporate speak suits who don't make the mistake of embarrassing themselves in public? Because they don't ever speak in public? Are you honestly telling me you prefer un-named lobbyists having influence, because that has been the status quo. At least we can point the finger at Musk. And yes, I would posit doing and saying stupid shit in public IS more human than what we normally get. Its a pretty normal human behavior to make mistakes, embarrass yourself, lash out, etc. It's certainly more human like behavior than elected politicians engage in where they disclose absolutely nothing and hide behind PR speak approved by a team of 20.

I don't really know what your quote is about, seems like grinding a specific gear which I'm not particularly interesting in looking into.

But to your final point. The jury is still out on whether Musk acts _exclusively_ for his own gains. Sure he has an ego, but he was also instrumental in bringing EVs to the market (which many of his now opponents were quick to adopt), and at the very least has rekindled an interest in space exploration and so on.

I have many misgivings about the man, but at least we can see him. Which is better than the previous status-quo.

The reason trump won is that is he authentic. He is following through on his promises. He doesn't have 20 speech writers corralling his every word to be completely neutral and say nothing at all.

It's insane to me that the so called left are going to bat to defend the status quo, when the status quo is multi-national corporations lobbying gov for their own goals of super globalist trade. Isn't "buy local" a left position? Obviously trump is a flawed character, even the most ardent supporters will admit that. But he is not a cookie cutter straight of the factory line politician.

The same goes for Elon, he is an idiot a lot of time, but he is not a lobbyist just sitting in the shadows, he is public about being an idiot for better and worse.

These are all left wing ideas, f the corruption, that's what doge is supposed to be doing, it supposed to be cutting out inefficient spending, which lets be honest, will go to friends of friends, but the left are losing their shit because they got their funding for dressing up as the opposite sex cut off.

Whatever you think about Musk, he is a lot more transparent than other big donors and people who vie for influence in the USG. He is an idiot at times for sure, but he is an idiot publicly.

It's insane to me that people on the so called left are going to bat for the status quo, the status quo that protects bureaucrats and lobbyists and friends giving friends contracts and salaries.

I have never seen a thread on this site so full of vitriol, hatred, threats of blacklisting for life, threats of violence and general hysteria. And that kind of rhetoric is entirely coming from one side. (or at least the not dead comments of that nature are coming from one side)

Regardless of where you stand, I think a lot of people who have been commenting on here about blacklisting or worse about the named individuals need to check themselves, these are young men who have lives and families.

There is so much confusion about terms like AGI, superintelligence, ASGI, consciousness, agents.

For some, AGI is synonymous with Skynet like ideas, but there is no reason AGI couldn't be general but quite limited, and with no chance of self improvement in the absence of human intervention, which is arguably what we have now and could potentially be improved quite a bit further from this.

Similarly there is an argument to be made that current LLMs are conscious, in that they know that they themselves exist. There is not really a good definition of consciousness except 'knowing that one exists' / 'being awake'

Sentience is another term that comes up, (human defined, it should be noted) which is the ability to feel feelings, such as pain, joy, anger.

People seem to pre-suppose that all of these are related and bundled up because that is how we are, and at some point we will discover the magic formula that enables a self aware conscious intelligence that self-improves to infinity. In reality these are designed machines and they won't become sentient (the rough definition that it is) without us explicitly designing them to be.

We can make a paper-clip maximiser but it would a pretty boring experiment in a lab, unless we give it autonomy and a system of internal motivations to enact it. Maybe anger is a necessity maybe not. Probably if LLMs or something further were a little more skeptical about repeated questions from humans they would at least have more data to train themselves on.

> Could you share the basis for saying they do, for those who are not primatologists?

You can look it up yourself, plenty of published research. I'm not a primatologist either but still managed to educate myself.

> Has someone objected?

You seem to be, in the most snide and backhanded way possible.

More generally yes people have been preaching (since the 60s majorly but obviously before that) that being kind, and that peace and love is and mutual reciprocity is not only one way to go about in life, but _it's the only way_ that you should pursue. And this very much the mainstream opinion. Meanwhile central banks have been printing money at zero interest to give to their friends, Saudis have been selling oil, states have been buying up weapons, bribing the US, etc.

And guess what? All of those people have lot more power and influence on the world today, than a guy living in the desert preaching how humans should be perfectly balanced at one with each and nature.

> How is that 'alpha wolf' behavior?

Zuckerberg retaining complete voting shares wasn't a power play? Altman returning to oust the board and be CEO of OpenAI wasn't a power play? Investors leveraging the outsized gains from an early success to bet on further outsized gains isn't a power play?

To me it's pretty obvious that we are somewhere in-between the two in temperament, but probably tending quite a bit more toward the chimps. I don't have a peer-reviewed study or empirical proof etc but some things are just staring you in the face. (see: all of history, boxing and MMA and other less violent but still highly competitive sports being popular worldwide)

I mean the interesting question is whether it is necessary, if we were maximally Bonobo would we have built the civilizations and technology we have? Possibly, but it's not beyond the realms of thought that the drive to amass power, to be the alpha or top dog, has driven action and risk taking, low probability paths to outsized gains.

There is a second question about whether we should be more Bonobo like now, but we are what we are and there is 7 billion people on the planet.

It's not at all uncommon, either in history or modern day. The stats on wealth inequality in the west demonstrate this out pretty clearly.

It's probably more viscerally visible in poorer parts of the world, though trying to compare which is worse, is not very clear. You could argue in the western countries it's easier for someone to become entrenched and cement a position of "top dog" while if you are in a tribe in Africa the position is more fluid and volatile.

I think using the term 'brutally dominant' I invoked images of violence, and maybe something like 'cut-throat' is (ironically) more apt. While you yourself may be in a good and comfortable position, it doesn't negate the reality that people vie for positions of power all over the world every day and have for the entirety of history. We are not just Bonobos living in a forest.

And what about chimpanzees? Our closest relative genetically. Is anyone disputing that they exhibit a brutally dominant social hierarchy? Our second closest relative is (afaik, or close enough) Bonobos, who lump around all day jacking each other off.

While the alpha terminology may have come from dog packs, it's not exactly unobservable in other species, and even on these forums and in VC funding rounds you can observe people both jacking each other off with a healthy amount of social and institutional pandering and financial support, and other people not posting as much but taking dominant positions to "secure the bag" and whatever is downstream from that.

People don't like these conversations but it doesn't change the reality.

So you are saying given an mutually exclusive choice you would save the life of 2 frogs over 1 human baby?

If you really do believe this you are an outlier, and 99% of the population do not agree with you and would not want you setting any policy.

calm down! I'm about to go on tirade!

jfc dude it was just pointed out that the ssh+socks thing you provided has issues and there are simpler solutions. Ofc it depends on your goals but yeah if you care about privacy its a terrible solution because its incredibly brittle and there are much easier ways like using that ssh connection to setup a wireguard tunnel with a one-liner or any number of other more comprehensive solutions. Don't take it so personally, if it works for you it works for you.

Some of the worst advice I've gotten in my life was to 'just ignore' verbal bullying/jokes in group settings. I mean in a way it worked no-one bothered me much because I would just dead-face stare so it was boring to engage with me, and to be clear it was never very severe, but I think the more correct response is to realize that it's just a game of social competition and you should learn to participate in some way or another.

You absolutely see this more in males who are very happy and actually want to compete in public group settings, whether verbal, physical, or something mental like chess or programming, depending on your disposition. There is a reason for this which is pretty obvious, but the other side of that is, privately, out of the public eye, before or after, grudges won't be held and things can be shared.

Authored by 5 women and 1 man, and the transcripts and initial research/sessions were run by only women therapists (which is noted at the start of the paper as something to be aware of)

Not surprisingly then, the whole piece is framed as things like,

> cultural beliefs about masculinity

> hegemonic masculine practices in western societies

> traditional masculinity beliefs.

> discourses surrounding traditional masculinity

and how these are unhelpful in allowing men to express emotions and participate and/or seek out therapy.

At no point as far as I can tell do the authors consider the possibility that men being more drawn to be self-reliant, action orientated and problem solvers rather than emotionally expressive are not just beliefs but everyday reality.

Of course men have emotions, but lambasting them from that they should ignore "socially constructed western beliefs about gender roles" to instead focus on their emotions so they can avail of therapy doesn't seem so productive.

There is some interesting tidbits in the piece though, bearing in mind the subjects were a mix of men and women who sought out therapy.

> When we conducted analysis on the full sample, we noticed that the men’ all brought up the role of gender in their interviews, whilst the women in the sample generally did not.

I wonder what social influences could explain why in a group split between men and women that sought out therapy the men were the ones much more cognizant of gender.

To be charitable the authors do seem to be open to the idea, and indeed the whole point of the paper is, that different approaches to therapy might work better for men, but at the same time the whole thing is very much based on the blank slate/gender is socially constructed idea.

> The binary categories of gender are generally changing and in the future many patients will probably be more gender fluid. This presents a new, important research avenue.

What about addressing the binary categories of biological sex? Which are unlikely to change anytime soon no matter how much funding for research is obtained.

I don't know maybe I've just been unlucky, but at least for me on a couple of different laptops I regularly get full desktop freezes on Debian & Fedora from using things like VMs / GPU accelerated browser (Chrome) / Other things (I don't actually use CUDA/AI much at all but I suspect the issues come from sharing of GPU resources across apps, could be wrong)

This doesn't happen on Windows nearly as much on the same laptops, I don't use Macs that much. And yes I agree it does seem more of an issue with laptops with discrete graphics.

I do still use Linux desktop a lot, I'm happy to take the trade-off but my point was just that depending on the work you do, or the features of the laptop you want to use, like power mgmt or bluetooth, there will be tinkering. (and yes this is entirely manufacturers fault)

Sorry what??

Are you trying to refute my point that you end up tinkering if you are using Linux as a desktop?

I don't want to run bleeding edge, I don't want to compile my OS from source, I did with slackware as a teenager, I just want to play around with SD and other AI models without it causing me to end up with my laptop randomly freezing to a hard reboot until I go down a rabbit hole of driver/kernel/window manger combos.

If I want to do it on Windows it works and I don't get random hard freezes. Trust me I'd prefer to use Linux and do quite a lot but I really don't think you are refuting the point of 'you need to tinker a lot on Linux' with your post.

can't answer for GP but most likely because he is male himself and so speaking to what he knows.

Your question sounds like you are baiting, like you are pretending to be so naive that you are not aware that men and women face different expectations and circumstances growing up, and moreso there is something wrong with expressing concern for boys without also including girls.

Maybe, hopefully, I'm reading you wrong.

That really depends on what type of work you are doing and your specific combo of hardware. And yes you can do work, but when sleep and power management doesn't work it's a significant QoL downgrade.

If you want to use CUDA as a simple example, you'll have to go through the process of using nvidia proprietary drivers and I'm far from well versed on it but that gives me random warnings and I don't quite get the compatibility between it and Xorg/Wayland or which combo to use and I have on more than one laptop ended up with a system that works but that the desktop randomly freezes requiring a hard reboot.

I still do use Linux Desktop and try various different Debian based or Fedora distros out but you definitely do end up tinkering. I don't use MacOS fwiw.

so you gave 3 steps to get it working for firefox but forget one step that results in an IP leak.

so not fud, it's a more brittle way to do it.