drdaeman

Nope, that’s just a running scam. I get a bunch of those from “Ledger”, “Trust Wallet”, and whatnot.

Indeed. But societies at large are behemoths. It takes years if not decades to reorient and adjust. Steel hadn’t overtook wood overnight either.

I don’t think the quality of that copper had anything to do with the tablets. Tablets only hold a record that an issue happened, and are otherwise uninvolved. It would be different if Ea-Nasir advertised his copper with clay tablets, but that’s not the story we know.

Was he being forced or compelled to offload his thinking to a machine?

I probably don’t share his sentiments, but that’s no different from being compelled to think in certain mandated ways (offloading being just a particular case of it), which is certainly a bad idea. If that was the case, I find it weird that he used a religious exemption mechanism, but glad he can act and think freely, the way he desires.

However, he may not have a choice of tool use or peers, and be compelled to send work to, or process results done by a non-human system, if that’s a part of his organization system (external to him with regards to duties and responsibilities). To grant him an exemption would be to discriminate upon others, no different how he can’t refuse to work with, say, a Satanist. Or a cyborg transhumanist. If that’s the case and he just refuses to feed his thinking (his part of the job) to an AI (not his part of the job), then that’s him being a zealot pushing his religious views on others. In such a case, I can quite clearly see why he went for a religious exemption, huh.

His own part of the job, his responsibilities - yes, of course he can’t be compelled on how he does it. Anything outside of that - nope, his religious beliefs end there, not his thinking - not for him to say how to do it, or refuse to interact.

> If your transhumanist religion compels you to share PII with your machines in a way which breaks the law, then there's likely an undue burden.

Some modern recording laws are not made with a machine component in mind, even if that machine is a local first-party system and does not actually store anything long-term or propagate information any further. A cyborg-identifying person with a wearable speech processor may rightfully argue such laws are unfairly preventing their functioning, as they’re lacking an important distinction.

> Let there be a market for academia

There are such markets, in every national budget. It’s been less than a full electoral cycle in many places since “AI” improved from a questionable typing-saving gimmick into something that can deliver arguably passable results autonomously, in some areas.

> It is time we remove this intermediary who does this.

Academia got tax grants because we have already figured out pure market forces don’t exactly nurture it so well. It got its slice of pie through gaining mindshare of people who thought paying for that is a good idea.

Now there’s this dilemma over what’s exactly is this “that” - that we believe in paying for.

But given that we collectively believe it is a good thing our taxes go to academics, I fail to see how removing that would be a good idea. Some say there are bad apples, and we cut off the whole tree that gave us plenty of good fruit as we nurtured it?

Something like a direct democracy over R&D appropriations might make more sense than a market… but then it’s not unprecedented (and quite likely) that such system would get dominated by all sorts of quackery. The feedback loop here is really long and convoluted - it’s not a Kickstarter.

So we’re probably best with old slow bureaucracy, steered by politicians, figuring out how to navigate it minimizing risks of any major setbacks. Surely, some possible budget leeches (if we look from our plumber’s viewpoint) are lesser of possible evils here?

Until this Nono tool gets a supply chain attack and happily ships all your Azure credentials somewhere they aren’t supposed to be, then starts mining Monero or something.

LiteLLM is frequently used in roughly the same scenario - trading virtual LAN-only keys for real ones as it relays requests to the inference providers.

What game with a huge amount of detail are you talking about?

For my experience, kinds of “yeah right” are just nonverbal signals. People who primarily communicate by text may miss those (it’s literally a different language), and so may folks who tend to get hyper focused on their thoughts so they lose track of their peer (so they stop seeing those details). What confuses me here is that it’s not something with a ton of detail - just a bunch of signals and their meanings that people are expected to know and recognize. There sure are groups with insanely deliberate rules and complex signaling, but that’s for extra geeky folks, not any norm.

Even if I’m just missing the complexity… I don’t see: why not being able to do so would tend to steer someone into hyper-verbosity? Especially when plain old conformance is more than enough to explain it all no less plausibly?

To be honest, I dunno about neurodivergent experience, I’m just a plain old ret^Wdumbass. I think that ND people know there’s - generally speaking - no secret and unspoken NT context game they’re not privy to. There could be something I’m not seeing or even knowing. And that’s exactly why - I think - nuances and details are sometimes important, not because brains can be wired different ways. My impression is that if someone writes any long (for the type of communication) form on some stuff they care about, they’re supposed to get into details and nuances, irrespective of author’s tendency for cognitive or processing quirks.

So, sorry - not to invalidate if this is a personal experience, but… while I won’t dispute ND correlation, how do you know that explanation?

> NDs have a hard time understanding the shared context of their audience

Or they understand that this “shared context” is a myth that doesn’t exist in reality. Plenty of situations where everybody just nods “yea, right” and then walks away with a different idea because they’ve been looking at it from a different perspective/set of assumptions.

And considering typical WAN latencies of 20+ ms, what’s the expected inference rate, 1 token per month?

Maybe I did something wrong or unaware about the tricks to make it fast, but last time I tried to play with exo and distribute processing over a few home LAN computers to see if I can run models that don’t fit my 3090, the penalties were brutal.

I don’t know about my sense of right and wrong (some shit’s pretty fucked up in my head for sure), but back in the day, before the war, it was possible to work remotely for for foreign companies and earn good money without selling one’s soul to the devil.

When Crimea was annexed the writing on the wall was clear, so I made The Grind a priority, got fairly close to the top 10% (the real gap is corruption and having connections; net worth is something you have one day and lose the next one), and was able to leave with enough cash to keep me more than just afloat. And almost everyone I knew who was able to outsource their skills and wasn’t blind to what was happening, did the same thing: grind, save, move, settle down, live.

And then, when the war escalated into a whole different phase, I know some folks left Russia with a lot less than what I had - not piss poor but nowhere close to the top 10%. They had it a lot rougher, but the danger to their wellbeing and lives was more immediate. So I know you’re wrong about wealth being a requirement for leaving - it’s a huge boon that makes it a lot easier, but it’s certainly not a hard requirement.

IIRC, unless something changed, 26.05 is the last nixpkgs that supports x86_64-darwin. :-(

Let’s check.

- Google. The canonical “don’t be evil” meme origin.

- Meta. Adjacent “they trust me, dumb fucks” meme origin.

- Apple. Least of all, but still fits: PR pushes double on privacy, but their interests are not their end-users, they just happen to align on some points as they’re not in adtech business.

- Microsoft. The classic case for getting slaps on the wrist, Gates said one thing he’d do differently is sending lobbyists earlier, or something to that effect, didn’t he?

- Amazon, Netflix, Uber, Airbnb and many more are still all variants of the same story. It’s not a lie that everyone nowadays expects most megacorps to fuck people over if there’s money in that.

That’s the Order of “Feel for It Again”, with oak leaf clusters already, no? Something’s cursed in this industry, every company that sells software to individual people ends up the same when they become gigantic and endowed by wealth and power, even if they were decent in their early days. They all become those blind heralds of paperclip^W shareholder value(tm) maximizers, and I’m finding myself struggling looking for an exception.

Am I to believe this time it’s going to be any different, to set those - not baseless, I’d say - cynical expectations aside? Any signs there’s a change?

So, I disagree - it’s obvious, given the ad-adjacent end-user-facing megacorp context, OpenAI is right there. Cynical - sadly so, yes. But I’m sure it’s obvious: the idea of such a possible direction comes up pretty quickly and reliably so.