Andy

I appreciate the distinction, but open source is always a spectrum, so I think the description is a reasonable application here.

It’s pretty wild, because this is genuinely great politics and great policy. It’s weird that folks haven’t realized this and acted on it yet. Fingers crossed.

That’s what I said! Fifteen minutes isn’t far. But it’s no longer close.

About twelve.

Holy shit, really?

That is Sony levels of stupid.

View from the Top.

I saw it when I was in my twenties with a friend because we (two mostly straight guys) thought we were going to see the latest silly Mike Myers movie. And then it turned out that he was barely in it! They just took all his scenes and put them in the trailer! The actual movie was a very dull romcom staring Gwyneth Paltrow and some guy who I don’t remember being in the trailer at all.

When it ended, we walked out of the theater and just said to each other ‘What the hell was that?’.

Also, I think Shallow Hal kind of falls in this too. I don’t recall the trailer being great, but it had to be good enough that it got me to see that terrible movie.

Also, I don’t know if this qualifies, but I remember that The Cable Guy staring Jim Carrey and Matthew Broderick was the first time I saw a movie and realized that a trailer can be misleading. They deliberately promoted it like The Mask and Ace Ventura. I think I was like 12 when I saw it, and it creeped me way the fuck out.

It wouldn’t surprise me if it’s actually a better movie than people remember, but the misleading promotion was a great way to ensure the movie didn’t find its audience.

It would explain a lot

Whew.

The thing about these incidents that I find most interesting is that they basically reveal a widely held suspicion among many people that these government contractors are over-crexentialed bullshit artists.

This just shows what we’ve all suspected: they’ve been cutting corners, claiming underserved authority, and making up shit for years. But now some folks are checking and reporting on it.

The up/down vote system directs the ranking algorithm on how to order posts and comments, and it visually signals to the user the relative popularity of a comment.

This, imo, is a wildly underappreciated mechanic for combating a lot of the harmful issues people associate with social media.

Most people recognize that discourse on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. is designed to divide and inflame people. the reddit-style downvote is remarkably effective at addressing this:

It does two key things in particular:

1. Downvoted comments are down ranked and hidden, so people are exposed to less toxic content.

2. If people do engage with unpopular comments, the negative score influences how people engage with them. On Facebook, commenting to defend Biden’s Israel policy will get elevated and create viscous fights. On Lemmy, it will get flagged with a virtual dunce cap. You can dunk on it, but there’s no point in arguing with it: we can all see that the argument is already over. Laugh and ignore.

Taken together, these discourage people from feeding trolls, and in doing so reduce the incentive to post something uncivil or stupid. It’s a remarkably powerful tool to address a huge problem, and I wish more people understood this.

Yeah, agree. Tables can be used standing or while sitting in the floor. Chairs are nice, but without tables a lot of stuff would happen at floor level anyway.

Definitely easier to get by without chairs.

I think this is the main story. I don’t think it’s new info, but it confirms the issue persists: this LLM is so heavily trained to fawn over Musk that it doesn’t exercise any application of context or attempt to find truth.

Which is sad.

The other issue I have is that this is an example of a recurring issue in which the tech obsessed ultra wealthy declare their plan to solve a problem for which a very straightforward policy solution already exists.

We don’t need tech to extend lives or feed the hungry. We just need to remove the paywalls to existing resources.

This is what I was going to say.

Also, long form narrative. Right now LLMs seem to work best for short conversations, but get increasingly unhinged over very long conversations. And if they generate a novel, it’s not consistent or structured, from what I understand.

all I keep wondering is why I didn’t try this sooner.

I think your experience is the most common way people first try Linux: most people first try Linux when they have a computer that is no longer valuable to them.

That was what happened to me. I had a Windows laptop that was running too slow for use, and a friend suggested setting up a Linux partition before I bought a new one. I did, and got another two years out of the laptop.

Now I see a lot of libraries and hackerspaces offering folks help doing this.

Deal removes constraint on OpenAI’s ability to raise capital

I think they mean “raze”…

Agreed. His comments are so bizarrely stupid on so many levels.

They’re not just “wrong”: they’re half-right-half-wrong. And the half that is wrong is idiotic in the extreme, while the half that is right casually acknowledges a civilizational crisis like someone watching their neighbors screaming in a house fire while sipping a cup of coffee.

Like this farmer analogy: the farmers were right! Their way of life and all that mattered to them was largely exterminated by these changes, and we’re living in their worst nightmare! And he even goes so far as acknowledging this, and acknowledging that we’ll likely experience the same thing. We’re all basically cart horses at the dawn of the automobile, and we might actually hate where this is going. But… It’ll probably be great.

He just has a hunch that even though all evidence suggests that this will lead to the opposite of the greatest good for the greatest number of people, for some reason his brain can’t shake the sense that it’s going to be good anyway. I mean, it has to be, otherwise that would make him a monster! And that simply can’t be the case. So there you have it.

It’ll be terrible great.

100%.

Peter Frase deconstructed this in an article a decade ago (and subsequent book) “Four Futures”.

It’s really not complicated. Saying 'the rich want to make us all obsolete and then kill us off ’ sounds paranoid and reactionary, but if you actually study these dynamics critically that’s a pretty good distillation of what they’d like to do, and they’re not really concealing it.

I appreciate this answer, because it at least tries to reason from first principles. You can’t, imo, have this conversation without actually defining what we consider to be the problem.

I think the key concern is that age – particularly during teenage years – typically correlates with a power imbalance. And the concern is that the younger person could be exploited and/or suffer harm. However we need to remember:

1. It’s possible for relationships to have a power imbalance and no one is harmed or looks back with regret.
2. It’s possible for relationships between people of the same age to be very harmful/regretable.

So the questions I have are: how correlated is a specific age gap with severe harm? And what would we advise in this situation?

I think that a 16 year-old probably has around a 50% of getting badly hurt in a relationship with another 16 year-old, and probably a ~65% chance with a 19 year-old. Because a 19 year-old can probably manipulate a 16 year-old better than their peer, but they’re also presumably a bit more experienced and mature, which can be a good thing.

I’m making these predictions presuming that they’re sexually active, btw. Which I think is probable. But if they’re not, I think that the risks go down to around 10% chance in both cases. This is just my gut impression. So I’d just advise any 16 year-old in a relationship with a 19 year-old to move VERY slowly physically, and talk frequently to an older friend or sibling. And if your partner wants to do anything you’re uncomfortable talking about with your older friend or sibling, that’s a sign you shouldn’t do it.

If you follow that rule, I think 16 and 19 is no big deal. Because I really want to emphasize: a lot of the risk already exists when a 16 year-old dates someone their own age.

I love buses too, but a van pool is materially different. Buses travel fixed routes. A van pool can act as a shared taxi that shuttles people directly between points of immediate departure, transit stations, and final destinations.

This article is a little light on thesis, but legit.

Personally, I’d like to tie a vision of autonomous vehicles to a broad rethinking of transit and public ownership. What if training data was shared, so instead of allowing Google to create another monopoly we deliberately cultivated a diverse market? What if we designed roads to accommodate autonomous van pools and also bikes and more light vehicles?

We can dream better than this.