Several timeline rating agencies have rated this timeline in the bottom quartile.

I’m starting to think an article referring to LLM as AI is s red flag, while them referring to them as LLM is a green flag.

Roko’s basilisk for those curious.

First of all, copying or modifying somebody else’s work without their permission isn’t theft. Information cannot be owned in the way a physical object can be, as access to information is nonexclusive, meaning any number of people can use the same piece of information without impeding each other. Contrast that with physical objects, say a car. If I’m using your car, you can’t use it, because I’m doing so. If I copy your book, you still have the original. Hence its not theft.

Copyright is a legal privilege governments grant to artists, so that the artists can be paid for their work. (In practice, it mostly protects big publishers and a few wealthy artists. Most artists can’t afford to the legal battle necessary to get the state to actually enforce the legal privilege they’ve been granted).

This is a weird thread. Lots of people for artists losing control of their creations quickly while simultaneously against artist creations being used by others without consent.

You are conflating copyright infringement and plagiarism. Plagiarism is claiming that you created the works of somebody else. This is morally wrong, regardless of whether you have the consent of the original author. By claiming that you created something you didn’t, you are lying to your audience. (In fact, even disguising your earlier work as new is considered plagiarism). The plagiarist is not a thief, they’re a liar. When you put somebody’s work into an LLM, and claim you created the output, you have committed plagiarism. Unless you credit every work used in the training of said LLM.

when I publish a book, to steal it is consenting to be Luigi’d; no matter how long ago it came out.

You do know that Luigi Mangione plead not guilty to the charges? And yet you use his name as a euphemism for murder. You can’t own information, copying it is not stealing.

My bet is that we’re at least one breakthrough away from actual artificial intelligence. Not helping is of course the fact that we don’t know what intelligence actually is.

Also, according to Eliezer Yudkowsky, the way we’ll notice a superintelligence moving against us is that all humans will die at once. Of course, while AI with human level intellect is probably possible, on account of humans having human level intellect, superintelligence being possible is still a stretch.

There were a number of mods that fixed that, which I would like to note is not a defense of the game. The one I used was Ordinator, which is a perk overhaul. For the magic skills, it makes it so that the first perk of the tree makes spells scale, up to twice as much damage once you max the skill out. The magic perk trees in that mod also provided a bunch of other nifty abilities. For example Illusion had a perk that added I think 1d20 power to spells such as ‘fear’, allowing you to try your luck in casting them at targets that are normally out of range.

I hang clothes up, so that they dry from evaporation. And I iron tshirts.

AI content already appears to be at the point where it’s absence is considered positive.

Could you link a screenshot of the LinkedIn post? I don’t want to make a LinkedIn account.

Well, meowmeowbeanz has a good point, namely, Anonymous saying anything is meaningless. Because Anonymous is a not a group, at best it could be called a movement, at worst it’s just a name. In any case, anybody can claim to speak for them. Hence their statements are meaningless.

However, meowmeowbeanz’s post is also a barely coherent rant with overused emphasis. Which makes them seem mentally unwell. It’s like encountering somebody with a tinfoil hat ranting about how the earth is round.

Apparently, it takes only 10 hours to beat Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup. . Which seems oddly low, considering just how difficult this game is, and that you have to start over if you die, since it’s a roguelike. Though, maybe I just suck. Though, maybe it’s for one successful playthrough, which isn’t that much of a useful metric when discussing roguelikes.

If they are dumping their bags now, which SHOULD make them criminals, what were they when they bought those bags? You make zero sense.

They’re using their influence on the government to enrich themselves. Textbook corruption. Shouldn’t be surprised that you don’t understand that.

Node runners showed miners who is in control in 2017, and they will happily do so again.

Node runners gained a victory so grand in 2017, that it can’t be spoken aloud, for the heavens would cave in under such splendor.

That’s cute, previously you pretended that only onchain exists, and now you’re a lightning expert, an expert who is unable to run a well connected node. Okay.

Are those ‘well connected nodes’ in the room with us right now?

Are the senators and state legislators who advocate for bitcoin strategic reserves all criminals? You don’t know what you’re talking about.

They’re trying to dump their bags on the US government. Is it illegal? Sadly no. Should it be? Yes.

A fork will never be considered bitcoin by my bitcoin node,

Your opinion won’t matter. You don’t own an exchange, you aren’t a major bitcoin miner, and you’re not a platform landlord or newspaper editor.

and nobody who runs a bitcoin node is incentivized to increase the limit on bitcoin as it would only devalue their bitcoin. Again, you don’t seem to understand even basic concepts about bitcoin.

The people I mentioned above don’t want Bitcoin, they want actual money. If devaluing Bitcoin will let them get more money, they’ll do it in a heartbeat.

Oh my, you’re stuck in a narrative from 2017. Again, you don’t know anything about bitcoin or the lightning network.

To make an analogy for the lightning network, imagine each time you made a credit card payment, you have a to roll a die, and only if it comes up as a six, your payment goes through.

Not useful to law abiding citizens, exactly. There’s plenty of people who are not law abiding citizens.

The scarcity is debatable because of forks. When a coin forks, then people need to settle which of the forks is the legitimate coin, and which one is the fork. There are several institutions and people who have influence over this discussion: Miners (They decide which fork to mine on), Exchanges (They decide who gets the old name and ticker symbol), platform landlords (they have significant ability to steer discourse), media (see previous). If enough of those came together, and decided that there should be 21 trillion bitcoin instead of 21 million, then there will soon be 21 trillion bitcoin.

While my example is far fetched, crypto currencies being forked to subvert their rules has already happened. For example, the ethereum/ethereum classic fork. The Ethereum blockchain got forked to roll back the hack of the DAO. Nothing the Hackers did violated Ethereum’s protocol, meaning that technically, they did nothing wrong. An example of a political decision which is harmful to the long term utility of the crypto currency would be the Bitcoin/Bitcoin cash fork. Bitcoin has a block size limit, which leads to a transaction limit of 7 transactions per second. This limit absolutely ruins Bitcoin’s potential utility, because even relatively small economies would be utterly choked with a 7 transaction limit. Still, miners profit from a tight transaction limit, and other institutions aren’t bothered by it, so they decided that the fork with the transaction limit was the legitimate one.

In conclusion, the 21 million bitcoin limit will remain as long as it is useful to the influential figures in the bitcoin ecosystem. See above for a rough listing of who those people are.

Bitcoin is a purely speculative asset. It has potential the same way a lottery ticket does.

Bitcoin is not useful, and its scarcity is debatable.

The problem with statements like “If you invested in Bitcoin back in 2009 you’d be rich now” is that you’d have to be clairvoyant to actually know that back then. And if you’re clairvoyant, the lottery offers a better return on investment than bitcoin.

My theory on how Deepseek managed to beat out ChatGPT: All LLMs do is that they try to guess what the next token is, based on statistics. Making the statistics more precise requires exponentially more training data and weights. You can see that if you compare model sizes, they tend to double for the next level of model.

So, as a consequence, you can build a model half as big, and only sacrifice a fraction of the performance.

Better, actually. This feeds the crawler a potentially infinite amount of nonsense data. If not caught, this will fill up the whatever storage medium is used. Since the data is generated using Markov-chains, any LLM trained on it will learn to disregard context that goes farther back than one word, which would be disastrous for the quality of any output the LLM produces.

Technically, it would be possible for a single page using iocaine to completely ruin an LLM. With nightshade you’d have to poison quite a number of images. On the other hand, Iocaine text can be easily detected by a human, while nightshade is designed to not be noticeable by humans.

If you use natural text to train model A, and then use model A’s output, a, to train model B, then model B’s output will be less good than model A’s output. The quality degenerates with each generation, but the it happens over generations of models. So, random data is worse than AI slop, because random data is already of the lowest possible quality for AI training.