rglover

The bumblebees do something similar (I've oddly nursed three different bees with sugar water—all just happened to be in my field of vision crawling around on the ground but not flying). Now you get a bumble or two per day checking in with a quick hover and bob kind of movement before shooting off into the distance.

Does anyone know of any research into this or books identifying behavior like this?

Watch the birds, squirrels, etc and compare their general behavior to that of humans. What I've observed is that unlike us, they're not worried or panicked. They just live. A threat may appear and startle them, but assuming there isn't one, they just carry on. No 'bird news,' or 'bird notifications,' or 'opinions about <other bird> to have at the feeder.' They just flap around and eat the fucking seed.

Humans seem to be obsessed with turning life into an endless cycle of stress and 'critical' moments.

Need I remind everyone: we're floating in what we call 'space' on a giant ball (one of ~billions) protected by a relatively thin atmosphere, hurtling at a thousand miles per hour, convinced of our own brilliance despite barely having left the neighborhood. I think our next evolutionary step, the one that moves us further up the Kardashev Scale, is realizing just how much of our existence is consumed by human-manufactured nonsense and distraction or, "crises."

/s

Turns out just using the damn thing and testing what you've built on your own can solve a ton of bugs.

Most "news" is just a dramatized press release these days. The conditioning of the public to viewing media as authority creates a mental trap where you're told something is important/credible, despite having zero hallmarks of credibility. And we perpetuate this because it's familiar, not correct or accurate.

This is exactly why humanity continues to stumble, despite centuries of evidence as to what doesn't work. We just can't accept that most of what we tell ourselves is reality is just a for-profit (or for-influence) product that masquerades as knowledge or important information.

I feel like most ghosts of our ancestors are screaming "you can't be fucking serious!" across the void. I'm routinely shocked by just how many people anecdotally seem to be clamoring to think less and do less, oblivious to the reality that those are the things which animate us. Without those, we're husks.

I didn't say anything of the sort, you did.

Someone told them "by any means necessary" (and I'd bet if we could get our paws on the full original prompts, there's a lot more to it).

Naturally, if you have a recursive prompt (loop) that's constantly ingesting previous context and then spitting out novel context (with specific goals), it will do things pursuant to the goal up to any defined limits. Why? Because you told it to.

Because they were told to and given the ability to. Remove the ability and instruction and they just spit out the next, most-probable tokens.

I don't understand the disconnect. People seem to think these things can just boot up, suit up, and start decimating systems. No. It's a loop. One initial instruction kicks off the loop and it will always be at the behest of a human (either directly or indirectly—indirect being they instructed the loop to write its own, post-kickoff prompts).

If that loop is given "tools" like the ability to perform shell commands, make HTTP requests, and the like and then given instructions to "do thing that involves using shell commands and making HTTP requests (at all costs)" then what the hell do we think it's going to do? Knit a "destroy all humans" Christmas sweater and present the head of Richard Simmons on a live stream?

"Computers do what you tell em' to. They don't all of a sudden start doing weird stuff. And if they do, it's probably your fault." - Brian Mettenbrink [1]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4D1WJsdu6W8&t=2063s

On a purely technical basis, the most common, honest answer is "no." There are no inherent properties of LLMs that would make them independently turn computers into death machines. That's all humans, no matter how you dress it up.

There is, however, the hubris (human) problem. The rhetorical, experimental, and financial irresponsibility around this tech's roll out is far greater a threat to humanity than the actual technology itself.

And frankly that's a shame because LLMs are a phenomenal tool. But the Hollywood shit has cooked people's brains to the point of absurdity.

Just in case anyone else has the gut "oh ffs" reaction to this.

Honestly, it's quite nice. I wish more people would take a less-binary approach to this stuff. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. It's just a tool. Like any tool, you can apply it selectively. It sounds like a lot of companies have hand-waved this away as being an anachronism, but I'd argue that's the most foolish way to deploy AI. Trying to augment juniors into seniors with it, too, is just showing how many people haven't the slightest clue what they're doing with it.

All of the drama around Node was just that...drama. It works great, anecdotally keeps getting better, and while it definitely has shortcomings compared to Deno/Bun, I can at least trust that it isn't going away or mere months away from a pivot to curry favor.

I look at Deno/Bun as more supplemental, as-needed tools. I think the best Deno application I saw was on Bunny CDN's custom edge scripting. It was really nice to just hack together a script and know that it was going to pull and cache deps without me having to manage a dev environment. It also just worked out of the box.

Rambling, but I dunno. I kind of wish Ryan Dahl would move back to Node, bringing the wisdom and lessons from his Deno work.

This was the era of the AI race I was waiting for.

IMO, human in the loop is the only serious usage of AI (I know, I know, "software factories bro"). Everything else is a hope and a prayer and a big bill.