zer0gravity

This seems more of a battle for frontier AI supremacy. I'm afraid that small capable models have been left in the dust. Big labs don't really want to hand over the golden eggs goose to the end user. Possibly the hardware vendors(e.g. Nvidia) may want to play in that area as well, to pull money from all parties.

The probability is high that major AI development companies are already using an AI instance internally for strategic and tactical decisions. The State power institutions, especially intelligence, are now having a real competitor in the private sector.

This insight makes one wonder if the same thing applies to humans as well. Are we just the sum of our experiences? Or the architectures of our brains are much more complex and different so that they have more influence on the outputs for the same inputs?

As many have stated here, the problem is not that there aren't good data exchange protocols in the world, the problem is the PROTOCOL or the MODEL by which the world works, which is maximizing financial profit, not civilizational profit. Humanity is not yet capable of acting as a whole, we're still in a paradigm where each part is trying to rule the other parts. With this kind of mindset, a territorial mindset, it's only logical that every actor out there is trying to control as much as it can, and create an advantage for itself. That's why no sharing and cooperation data protocol catches, because those are incompatible with the current state of Affairs.

Absolutely! Should have said interesting and valuable.

I'd say that this is a romanticized holistic vs reductionist exploration. Interesting nonetheless.

I get the same :( I'm on Archlinux.

This is amazing! There are a lot of low level things that I don't really grasp and, while going through the APE description, I saw this: "The other tradeoff is the GCC Runtime Exception forbids code morphing, but I already took care of that for you, by rewriting the GNU runtimes".

Can somebody, please, explain if allowing code morphing will increase security risks?

I'm not talking about a zillion protocols with discoverable services, but of a single language of the internet that allows service discoverability and concept sharing dynamically between peers.

What I think we need is Interoperability, not just protocols. What I understand by interoperability is what a mature (spoken) language provides. Although its body of words remains pretty much fixed, it offers a wide range of expression. I think that what we need is a language of the internet to achieve this type of interoperability. So, in a way, a language can be seen as a communication protocol and, with such a language, two systems can talk and discover and consume each other's services. This language shouldn't change too much, but it should be complex enough, to start with, in order to allow a high degree of expression and, ultimately, interoperability.

Open-source is eating the world and, in some sense, the other way around too.