alboaie

Looks usefull. Could you explain how it works? you have to chain it after the call from other LLM ?

Now, Japan has expanded its territory. This is a common method for increasing land area, correct?

In my opinion, believing that adherence to processes is beneficial is a flawed thing, applicable mainly to highly repetitive and mundane tasks. For example now I am 100% focused on expediting the progress of projects that I start, including AssistOS (blog.assistos.net) initiated this year. Anticipating a period of considerable chaos ahead, my sole process involves a firm belief in the utility of the project. Additionally, I somewhat subscribe to a Kabbalistic approach to life, where the intention of contributing positively to the world invariably brings reciprocal rewards. I am committed to adapting to every emerging opportunity to advance the execution of my projects as effectively as possible. Act quickly on what you believe will benefit both you and others. Don't overthink or aim for perfection. You'll make many mistakes, but that's okay; it's the best way to learn quickly.

After an editor, who has edited millions of pages and seems to be a jack-of-all-trades, unjustifiably rejects your contribution on a topic where you have dozens of scientific articles published, the only conclusion is that the system is flawed. There's a need for a fundamental change in approach, probably to a system where censorship exists only in cases of clearly illegal content, and various opinions are allowed to be expressed. On the other hand, to filter out the noise, there's a need for a trust propagation system among editors and viewers, so that each time, you get the most probable form of a page based on the trust given to direct contacts and indirectly to recursive contacts. Maybe AI could also help a bit. Who dare to start a new Wikipedia ;) ?

Exciting concept! Empowering employees for bold decisions with accountability can boost org effectiveness. Crafting a credit system for personal and institutional risk assurance is a thrilling research. But "important" persons are probably bussy managing their curent brand and social influence...

Capturing a billion or even trillion-dollar value proposition awaits entrepreneurs who seize the opportunity to implement AI moderators in platforms like Wikipedia, search engines, and social networks. This disruptive potential beckons ambitious innovators to enter the market, positioning themselves to challenge and reshape the industry while creating substantial economic value.

It will kill startups working on AI Agents, it is already clear from the last updates that they compete with the APIs customers and that is bad for the creative startups. The world require better open source LLLm models. Akso the startups should lwarn to collaborate and not reinvent everything, but how to do it is an unsolved challenge in the current capitalist economic model...

They do not invest much in complex UI, everything they ship is based on the chat methaphor and the inteligence of their LLMs. Clever. But sooner or later the AI should go to the level if operating systems or at least should replace all kinds of applications and interfere with complex workflows. The details and difficulty to decide what is opinion and what is obhective fact will slowdown everything as for everybody else.

The post is long, may be is a good ideea to start with conclussions...

Is there a possibility of flight disruptions in Europe?

From discussions it seems that the problem is that many subreddits will be going private to protest the recent Reddit API costs changes. Some will not come back unless the change is reverted. If the change is never reverted, they will be gone forever and this project is trying to save old posts so they can still be seen even though the subreddits are private. Not sure how usefull it will be... but somehow interesting as an example of reaction of policies changes of centralised social networks

"A cold, dark universe is billions, if not trillions, of years in the future. Between now and then, humans will face plenty of other calamities: wars and pestilences, ice ages, asteroid impacts, and the eventual consumption of Earth—in about 5 billion years—as our sun expands into a red giant star. To last until the very end of the universe, an advanced civilization will have to master interstellar travel, spreading far and wide throughout the galaxy and learning to cope with a slowing, cooling, darkening cosmos. Their greatest challenge will be figuring out how to not be here when the universe dies, essentially finding a way to undertake the ultimate journey of fleeing this universe for another.

Such a plan may sound absurd. But there is nothing in physics that forbids such a venture. Einstein’s theory of general relativity allows for the existence of wormholes, sometimes called Einstein-Rosen bridges, that connect parallel universes. Among theoretical and experimental physicists, parallel universes are not science fiction. The notion of the multiverse—that our universe coexists with an infinite number of other universes—has gained ground among working scientists." From article... The infinite concept is probably a human made conncept so and anyway 1 million years is probably more than enough to change your "identity" a few hundreds time (at least). So this surving the end of the universe is a bit too much to consider even in the wildest fantasies ;)

Nobody reading HN?

it remembers ue about the inevitable tension between eficiency and resilience...

The best one that could replace all: Getting things done without doing them (yourself)

I think you got it but for clarity: for a mind at level 4, "beyond" rely means "beyond"... and this could be sociopathic. For level 5 minds, beyond means partial beyond while still incorporating the lessons from not being relay beyond... Again and again, I can see that meta-rationality is just a modern name for wisdom, And obviously, the whole idea of wisdom is not cool because too many "wise" people preached "sociopathic ideas" to level 3 or level 4 minds.

Basicaly, for rational people this "beyound good and evil" is like preaching sociopathy. Nietszche communication style was adressed somehow to level 4 but using means used by level 3. And as article says, preaching level 5 to level 3 people is basicaly futile or even dangerous...

Traditionally, the bridge between stage 4 and 5 was reserved for "spiritual" seekers. And this is still a path to folow. While stage 4 people could consider spirituality a level 3 activity, hostory shows enough level 5 people that bridged over "duality" for example and that used "wisdom" as a proxy for metarationality. Having stronger "rationality based results" and call these result as "science results" makes the brdiging both easier and harder. It is easier because you get a stronger indicaton (lets say data) that rationality is an ilusion. However, you can also get lost in details: " became unable to see the forest because of the trees" ;)

Despite admitting verbally that a map is not the territory, rationalists hope that if they take one map, and keep updating it long enough, this map will asymptotically approach the territory. In other words, that in every moment, using one map is the right strategy. Meta-rationalists don’t believe in the ability to update one map sufficiently (or perhaps just sufficiently quickly), and intentionally use different maps for different contexts. (Which of course does not prevent them from updating the individual maps.) As a side effect of this strategy, the meta-rationalist is always aware that the currently used map is just a map; one of many possible maps. The rationalist, having invested too much time and energy into updating one map, may find it emotionally too difficult to admit that the map does not fit the territory, when they encounter a new part of territory where the existing map fits poorly. Which means that on the emotional level, rationalists treat their one map as the territory.

Furthermore, meta-rationalists don’t really believe that if you take one map and keep updating it long enough, you will necessarily asymptotically approach the territory. First, the incoming information is already interpreted by the map in use; second, the instructions for updating are themselves contained in the map. So it is quite possible that different maps, even after updating on tons of data from the territory, would still converge towards different attractors. And even if, hypothetically, given infinite computing power, they would converge towards the same place, it is still possible that they will not come sufficiently close during one human life, or that a sufficiently advanced map would fit into a human brain. Therefore, using multiple maps may be the optimal approach for a human. (Even if you choose “the current scientific knowledge” as one of your starting maps.)

As people and societies we evolve towards metarationality. The reality is too complex to be handled within a single theory. We have to develop metarationality (wisdom) and pragamaticaly make jumps between contradictory theories. Any other aproach is doomed because the complexity will be always too much for any "single rationality" approach.

As people and as society we evolve towards metarationality. The reality is too complex to handle within a single theory, we need to develop metarationality (wisdom) to pragamaticaly make use between contradictory theories. Any other aproach is doomed because the complexity will be always too much for any "single rationality" approach.

An auomation could break something if automaticalyy choose the wrong cluster. Are all these clusters "free to pick"?

I am alone noticing that you can't anymore copy/paste slides between presentations or diagrams between different google drive documents

Obviously, you can't undestant what you do not experience yourself ( at least a bit). And saddly this lack of insight could justify hunter/prey dynamics and win/loose approaches as social games. However,because most society members are inevitably loosers in such games then these games are unstable and backfire periodically ( but could take even hundres of years until a culture fails and resets the evil games)

Obviously, no advice fits all. But with wisdom, it makes sense for smart, hard working and motivated people. It is wiser to take life as a set of " experiences" and not as a war with yourself to get in your dreamland. However, folowing your dream is one of the important experiences...

If we embrace meta rationality, we could build tools and wisdom in our culture to sort out this problem.

Having a scientific blockchain looks like a decent idea... but of course it will not suffice and will be gamed. The real causes of the mess are complexity of the world compared with our minds and tools and the lack of epistemologic undestanding as society,institutions, culture. Science can't be more than a nice and usefull collection of heuristics. Otherwise is just the Scientism religion lurking arround and pretenting to read God's mind. Metarationality concepts could offer an exit from the inevitable mess.

The consensus problems is like a space in wich each "cell" have a different distance from other cells and this translate in different clock and differrent perception of time for each cell. And the cells can have random locations in space each time and jump in space all the time.. Modeling consensus as celular automata is interesting but maybe is just too abstract to get performant algoritms...

One insight is that consensus in a distributed system is that the most important aspect is the propagation of information betwen nodes. Practically, it is enough if you have a protocol imposing some logical epochs and time (real clock) limits after which the nodes are not alowed to change their mind about the events of an epoch. When you get information about the changes proposed by a large majority of nodes ( and what they know about all other nodes) than any kind of total ordering you introduce will give you a sound consensus.

Blockchain could make easier to implement the vision of complementary curencies from https://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0712683992/transac... Bernard Latier is prophetic in "The Future of Money: Creating New Wealth, Work and a Wiser World". Aloso, Blockchain could enable some sorts of decentealised UBIs. Unfortunately the first wave was too libertarian in its culture and not focused on doing really good things for the world. Too much greed, fear and short sighted decisions. But this wave proved that the monopoly on money is an acident and not a necesity. This could be very huge. When many people start believing it just becomes reality..

who is Gerardus Blokdyk ?