That still puts Larry Ellison in the danger zone, at least.

Feynman reminds me of the brujo (one specific man, not brujería in general) from Pirsig’s Lila. Feynman’s safecracking and unorthodox approaches are like the brujo’s routine flaunting of social norms; through routinely doing things the wrong way (sacred clowning), new possible behaviors and modes of social existence are explored. Also, Feynman’s attitudes towards women remind me of that brujo’s tendency to spy on women by looking through their windows into their homes while they were not necessarily dressed, which the brujo’s society did not tolerate.

“You mustn’t be afraid to dream a little bigger, darling.” Some corporations are criminal enterprises and should have their tax numbers revoked. Some corporate officers are criminals and should be prosecuted. Some are complicit in crimes against humanity or war crimes and should be internationally prosecuted.

Every person I talk to — well, every smart person I talk to — no, wait, every smart person in tech — okay, almost every smart person I talk to in tech is a eugenicist. Ha, see, everybody agrees with me! Well, almost everybody…

The big difference is that Yud is unrigorous while Wolfram is a plagiarist. Or maybe putting it another way, Yud can’t write proofs and Wolfram can’t write bibliographies.

Bezos’ open interference in the Washington Post’s editorial section has pushed Walter Bright into a very funny series of public admissions that he did not have to make. See the orange site here for his ongoing libertarian meltdown.

Meanwhile, actual Pastafarians (hi!) know that the Russian Federation openly persecutes the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster for failing to help the government in its authoritarian activities, and also that we’re called to be anti-authoritarian. The Fifth Rather:

I’d really rather you didn’t challenge the bigoted, misogynist, hateful ideas of others on an empty stomach. Eat, then go after the bastards.

May you never run out of breadsticks, travelers.

It’s almost completely ineffective, sorry. It’s certainly not as effective as exfiltrating weights via neighborly means.

On Glaze and Nightshade, my prior rant hasn’t yet been invalidated and there’s no upcoming mathematics which tilt the scales in favor of anti-training techniques. In general, scrapers for training sets are now augmented with alignment models, which test inputs to see how well the tags line up; your example might be rejected as insufficiently normal-cat-like.

I think that “force-feeding” is probably not the right metaphor. At scale, more effort goes into cleaning and tagging than into scraping; most of that “forced” input is destined to be discarded or retagged.

Thus leading to this sneer on HN. I’m quoting it in entirety; click through for Poe’s Law responses.

I was telling someone this and they gave me link to a laptop with higher battery life and better performance than my own, but I kept explaining to them that the feature I cared most about was die size. They couldn’t understand it so I just had to leave them alone. Non-technical people don’t get it. Die size is what I care about. It’s a critical feature and so many mainstream companies are missing out on my money because they won’t optimize die size. Disgusting.

Lucky 10000: this integration started decades ago. You may have heard of “computational trinitarianism” or read Baez & Stay 2009. The current big listing of correspondences is called the computational trilogy. Don’t let the Nobel committee’s foolishness blind you to the genuine connections between computer science and physics.

Surprisingly close to the plot of Illuminatus!, isn’t it?

Your phrasing reminded me that he was one of the principal authors of lex back when he was a whelp.

This exchange on HN, from the Wordpress meltdown, is going to make an amazing exhibit in the upcoming trial:

Anonymous: Matt, I mean this sincerely: get yourself checked out. Do you have a carbon monoxide detector in your house? … Go to a 10 day silent retreat, or buy a ranch in Montana and host your own Burning Man…

Matt Mullenweg: Thanks, I carry a co2 and carbon monoxide monitor. … I do own a place in Montana, and I meditate several times a day.

Yeah, it’s a real thing that happens when programming robots. Kinematics is more difficult than route planning, for example.

I think it might be worth reflecting on exactly why Fountain seems to “get weird;” it had a context and complaints about it are part of that context. I liked this recent video which explores the politics of Fountain.

Nuclear power has fairly predictable amortized returns. I imagine that this is worth the cost to MS over the next two decades or so; we have no idea what their current energy premium is like, and this plant doesn’t have to be as cheap as a new plant, just cheaper than the current premium.

Hallucinations — which occur when models authoritatively states something that isn’t true (or in the case of an image or a video makes something that looks…wrong) — are impossible to resolve without new branches of mathematics…

Finally, honesty. I appreciate that the author understands this, even if they might not have the exact knowledge required to substantiate it. For what it’s worth, the situation is more dire than this; we can’t even describe the new directions required. My fictional-universe theory (FU theory) shows that a knowledge base cannot know whether its facts are describing the real world or a fictional world which has lots in common with the real world. (Humans don’t want to think about this, because of the implication.)

I hear you. You’re largely right, and I think it’s a perspective shift.

… explain the implications.

I need to write a longer post about the justification (basically, what is a moat anyway?) but without a moat, a computation vendor can’t profit from their capital investment. This kills the OpenAI.

Fully agreed, but also I was doing multicloud in 2017. Managed k8s is not just a meme; I was able to use the same YAML on four different providers (Azure, Bluemix, DigitalOcean, Google Cloud) to get my N+2. Indeed, YMMV.

Note that he uses the same strategy as Joe Rogan: invite a smart person on, ask them introductory questions about their research, and then just kind of sit there with a dumb look and fail to understand what they’re saying. I gather that it’s easy to empathize with and doesn’t require listeners to actually learn much since they’re essentially sitting in a 101 course with a professor who is reading the curriculum aloud. What puzzles me is why MIT funds this shit.