ahf8Aithaex7Nai

> in reality power determines justification

In fantasy land maybe, reality is more complex than can be summed up in a barroom cliché.

Not sure, but it's possible that Tailscale wasn't popular when I found Yggdrasil. That might be the whole answer. I discovered it because I’ve had an interest in mesh networks and alternative networking. I also have a preference for services that I can configure via text and control from the terminal. These things are so seamless on Linux that I’d find GUIs more of a hassle. Text files are easy to transfer between computers. And they’re so wonderfully explicit: you can just read what’s in them.

And I don't like it when I see the word “Pricing” on a project's website. It makes me suspicious. I can rely on gifts to the world like Linux, Debian, PostgreSQL, Apache, Nginx, Caddy, and Yggdrasil without any problems for decades. Commercial software products turn into shit sooner or later. I’m happy to pay for things, but paradoxically, software seems to be good and stay good only when it’s gifted.

I’m vaguely familiar with Tailscale from work. The licensing model restricts usage. The central control plane is closed-source. Someone built an open-source implementation. Then they hired the lead maintainer. It’s the usual business nonsense that could lead to them being bought by Google or Meta, or trying to monetize my metadata, or shoving ads down my throat, or doing something stupid with AI. I’d rather stick with Yggdrasil.

> Can you tell how you configured the tool to accomplish this?

The Yggdrasil client is installed on every computer. I'm running Debian. I have no idea how well it works on Mac or Windows. Yggdrasil assigns a key pair to each computer.

On the VPS, the config is modified in two places:

    Listen: [
      tcp://[::]:51350
    ]

This makes the VPS listen for Yggdrasil connections.

    AllowedPublicKeys: [ 
      pubkey1
      pubkey2
      pubkey3
      ...
    ]

This ensures that it only accepts connections from the specified computers. You can also leave that part out. But then any Yggdrasil client out there could connect to your VPS.

Note that this is only the config for the VPS.

I only make one change to the config of the other computers:

    Peers: [
      tcp://hub.mydomain.tld:51350
    ]

This causes them to actively connect to the VPS.

> Does it mean that the VPS has to be in-between all the traffic, or do we punch holes through the NAT for direct connections?

It depends. If the computers can reach each other on a local network, the Yggdrasil clients will automatically find each other and connect. To do this, you wouldn't have had to change anything in the default configuration. you would simply have had to install and start the Yggdrasil client on the computers.

With NAT in between, they wouldn’t connect on their own. But since they’re configured to actively connect to the hub in any case, they can still see each other via the hub and exchange data even in this scenario. Yggdrasil handles routing and NAT traversal. If both paths are available (locally or via the VPS), Yggdrasil defaults to the local path. But in the general case (where all other computers are behind NAT), all traffic would go through the VPS.

Special case: If only one of the two computers is behind NAT and you want a direct connection, then the accessible computer corresponds to the VPS in the configuration above.

I wonder what the early humans felt and thought when, for the first time, they followed that creative impulse to trace the outlines of wild horses and other animals on the stone walls of a cave by the light of a campfire or a torch. I don’t think they looked at them the way we look at pictures today. I think that seeing these depictions for the first time -- which they had just drawn themselves and in which they now recognized the animals out there -- must have been linked to powerful spiritual and religious feelings. People must have attributed animistic beliefs to these drawings, thinking that since their forms so clearly resemble those of animals, they must just as clearly embody something of the animals’ nature.

Since you seem to believe that simply dropping these terms has any value, you’ve already convinced me that someone who has studied philosophy most likely understands these things better than you do. It’s a bit like Ben Shapiro and logic. He likes to act as if it’s his area of expertise, but he only has a very amateurish grasp of it.

I think the problem is more that people doubt Musk's sincerity. And I wonder, to be honest, how it’s possible not to. Musk is no Wright and no Bell. He should be placed in the same category as people like Bernie Madoff, Charles Ponzi, and Gregor MacGregor. But your perspective contains another flaw: In hindsight, we see the big, daring projects that were successful. What we don’t see are the countless projects that failed. That skews the cost-benefit analysis a bit. Especially since large projects have far-reaching, often negative side effects. You can admire Hannibal for his crossing of the Alps, but no sane person would want to be one of the many soldiers who froze to death in the process.

Well, there's a pretty obvious answer that doesn't require a conspiracy theory, because the influence is well documented and, in many cases, isn't even denied or concealed by those being influenced.

I don't think these are the smartest people in the world. Yes, they're investing 1% to 2% of global GDP. My conclusion from this is that things are going to get pretty rough when the bubble bursts. I see what LLMs are capable of every day at work. Yes, it's impressive. But I also hear how the Silicon Valley bullshitters talk about it—and it just doesn't add up. You're welcome to see great rationality in the fact that they're all pouring all their capital into it. I see great irrationality there instead. Don't assume I'm not familiar with the subject just because I don't share your assessment.

Edit:

A quote from this discussion:

> I'm worried about what happens when an AI or a coalition of AIs starts optimizing reality instead of just optimizing chess boards.

That's the intellectual and analytical level at which fears about AI play out. And that's exactly the level at which the bullshitters stoke those fears. And you want me to take that seriously? Sorry, but that's ridiculous!

Yeah, yeah, sure, I'm ignorant. In any case, I recognize unfalsifiability when I see it. So it seems there's still some room for even more ignorance beneath my ignorance.

Can you refute the claim that the Second Coming of Christ is imminent? It’s very convenient to put forward something completely absurd and hypothetical and then expect the other side to refute it. You can have an LLM of your choice compile a list of prominent figures who hold the opposing view. The list is not empty. By the way, AI-2040 used to be AI-2027. I’m already looking forward to more updates.

Awesome!

> Just because you list up some type of random technology, doesn't make it an good argument.

In what way is this random? It's a chronology of the bullshit from the past few years. Also: easy to say in hindsight. The hype was there, and many people believed it. The press, in particular, just lapped up the claims the way a Labrador Retriever gobbles up whatever you put in front of it.

> We have opened up a potential pandoras box without knowing it.

No, we haven't. We have a new type of (I would say, inferential) computation that is truly astonishing because it can convincingly imitate language and, to a certain extent, intentional action. Feel free to read "generate" or whatever instead if you don't like "imitate." It won't wake up and murder you in your bed at night. It won't take over the world. It won't wipe out humanity. It won't fly to Mars and build data centers there. It won't maximize paperclips. It probably won't even take your job away. It has no consciousness. It has no intentions.

And if you look behind the curtain, all you'll see are a few very rich, unscrupulous guys who are stoking the debate with fearmongering because it's strategically advantageous for them to do so. Don't let them take you for a fool. Use GenAI to your advantage while tokens still cost a fraction of what they're actually worth, but ignore all that doomsday nonsense.

Two things:

1. If you reduce the criticism to personal dislike, you’ve built yourself a nice straw man.

2. Where’s the clear evidence? I actually see more evidence that the whole thing is already stagnating and that there won’t be much more to squeeze out of it.

One more thing:

Self-driving cars, the metaverse, Hyperloop, crypto/Web3/NFTs, AGI announcements: I’m so sick and tired of this nonsense. We should just ignore the ramblings of these crackpots.