ux266478

No, I think that's approaching a strawman. Speaking as somebody that doesn't give a shit about cryptocurrency.

It's all tradeoffs. The same power that grants the ability to reverse transactions also grants the ability to reverse a transaction in bad faith and commit fraud. Will the system correct that? Would it surprise you to know that it doesn't have to? That same power also grants the ability to lock an entity out of any kind of monetary transaction, and things like debanking. Usable for good? Sure. I don't think it's controversial to say that it being leveraged against Hunter Biden was at all justified, however. Would you like to be on the receiving end of that? Would you like to see a world where an LLM gets to decide that kind of thing based on your presence in the surveillance panopticon?

To that sense, it's really just a disagreement on what tradeoffs are acceptable. People who have a utopian view of cryptocurrency are looking at some tradeoffs as preferable to others, it's a different failure mode. To be clear, I don't necessarily agree with it myself, but you shouldn't be so uncharitable to people to assume disagreement is always a matter of delusional ignorance.

> This is under-utilization and under-utilization is not optimal from an economics perspective.

The problem is that this sneaks in a postulate by negating "optimal", which is that underutilization is the opposite of that which is desirable, that it is implicitly undesirable. If we don't take that premise, say that it's value neutral and neither desirable nor undesirable by itself, then the argument doesn't really stand. This neutral valuation is far more reasonable to me. Anybody who works in logistics intuitively already understands this. We don't have cargo ships bow to stern across every single shipping lane, yet this is "underutilization" of those shipping lanes. Sure they're bottlenecked at the ports, but the ports can always be bigger, more numerous and possibly even work faster. The slop turns out doesn't matter. Actually it's beneficial for a few reasons, but my point here is sufficient I think.

You're right this is ultimately a power struggle at the core of it, what I think you could stand to acknowledge is that's all it is. It's just dressed up as economic rhetoric.

Actually I didn't say anything about overcomplexity and I wasn't thinking about systemd as an init system at all. That wild misinterpretation, which you knew to (partially) hedge with that "usually", is more or less the proof in the pudding frankly.

It would make sense, but minutes later? Did the IRGC brass break out the infamous FTL dirtbikes?

I think the problem is that it's overdeveloped rather than underdeveloped.

> Kimi K3 is ≈ 1.5 TB and requires multi million dollar hardware to run.

Not that it defeats your point, but an 8x MI355X node is $350k-400k. The only reason you're paying that much is for the VRAM, too. You could run it with much less compute than what you get in a single card.

It's going to make shareholder's lives better. And you better believe we're replacing conductors with lowest-bidder slop, that's the whole point. That's shareholder capitalism's playbook, it hasn't changed for the last 50 years.

What, you don't want to save a few bucks on a train ticket? Come on, you'll love it!

I'm interpreting this as justification for sysadmins making a comeback, which I would absolutely love. We lost so much as a society when they were taken behind the shed.

Moral relativism is about handling the disparity of moral frameworks in the world, which you acknowledge exists at several points. The inverse of moral relativism is moral absolutism, which is that there exists precisely one set of moral facts. The space between these two is a spectrum, by the way, and usually we choose our position on the spectrum depending on what our purposes are. If we're talking about a disparate cultural collective, moral relativism is structurally necessary. Relativism just means we have a contextual differentiator, just generally in philosophy, not just in moral studies.

The struggle you have with pinning down moral relativism I think betrays the fact that your understanding of it is low quality. A good ear mark is, can you name a single passage from a treatise on moral relativism that you like? If you can't find a single aspect of a philosophical construction to advocate for, that means you don't actually understand it.

You also keep sliding between conflating moral relativism with moral anti-realism and even moral nihilism at one point. These are different axes.

> Realism + Absolutism

All moral facts converge for every single person. As a matter of fact, they aren't facts at all. Morals are a hinge of the Wittgenstein variety.

> Realism + Relativism

Moral facts are derived from frameworks, or contexts, which are themselves grounded facets of reality.

> Anti-Realism + Absolutism

Kantian Constructivism. There are no facts which are coherent without a framework, but moral claims are still necessarily only capable of being universal.

> Anti-Realism + Relativism

Moral reality is constructed by the framework, grounded only to the framework.

It's certainly encouraged a lot of the efficiency innovations that have come out of Chinese labs. The fact you can run a Kimi K3 on a single node is batshit insane.

A major difference is they weren't being sold as "assistants" back then. Now they're a product expected to act a certain way. While some LLMisms probably come from shared poison in the pretraining corpus, many of them also come about as a result of trying to make them more appealing as a product. Most open weight models are just a company's product, post-instruct and everything. Base models are a different ballgame (and are becoming increasingly sparse), so effectively no matter what you're pulling in someone's model that's been trained into the chirpy "executive assistant" personality we all hate. Some models are worse for it than others.

You can tell the post-training makes all the difference though. Gemini has a different stink to it than DeepSeek.

Find a way to get ring 0 without touching any system APIs and you can just make your own APIs. My programs shall never say "please."

No, that would be a fundamental misunderstanding of the bitter lesson, which is about research bets over time. The object of comparison is the technology, the underlying substrate and fundamental architecture, and how much of it can be offloaded to computation. We're talking about the same architecture here, they're both transformers. The difference doesn't exist in a relevant way to the question.