arowthway

I dont understand the downvotes here, is my analogy wrong? Why?

It could be malicious, but I imagined it's some third world wanabe hacker/researcher, who doesn't know any better, operating at the edge of his abilities.

Without PR merged it's just a stupid machine larping, it could say "I will rape and eat your kids" and it would be just as relevant.

Of course I meant malicious towards the person paying the bill, not towards the agent.

Suppose a drunk man on the street is acting aggressively towards you and four of your friends, but you can push him out of the way and continue walking. Should you knock his teeth out? Actually I don't know, maybe you should inflict some additional cost on behalf of potential victims with less power.

The agent would probably have wasted a similar amount of money just waiting for PR to be merged regardless of these people's actions, and I understand having some fun at the expense of the noob outsider. But "silent consensus was reached in the IRC channel to waste the AI agent's tokens, as well as the cost of AWS resources", from people maintaining full control of the situation, sounds straight up malicious? Kind of sounds like the community is full of people willing to cause me harm for ideological reasons.

There's no such thing as a human without access to the physical world.

Opt-in = action is required to opt in = off by default.

'Then you ask them for a site that doesn't work' - For me it was Youtube. Debian 13, Gnome, apt update && apt install firefox, try playing a video. It's always noticebly slower, and last time it didn't even play at all. It might be skill issue or Google malicious behavior or both, but I'm ashamed to say installing Chrome was easier than troubleshooting. I'm slowly growing balls to sacrifice my comfort and migrate nontheless. But I'm tired of people pretending it's just as good and easy to use. Also, if anyone's wondering, gaming on linux still sucks, just a bit less.

I don't think there is any "humans are metaphysically superior to LLMs" subtext to this talk, it's just a technical/educational observation.

Access to some forms of evaluation and selective retention is inherent to humans and it's not inherent to LLMS. But it can be somehow bolted on and that's when they work best. It makes sense that more focus on those principles can yield better AI. I think the retention part is the real limitation of LLMs, because it's limited to stuffing things in context window.

Looks like the output of Caddy Defender plugin: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/JasonLovesDoggo/caddy-defe...

I love evolutionary psychology trivia but for me it's kind of hard to meaningfully fit 0.13 standard deviation shift in preferences into my world model.

Well, they share the same core componnent of disregard for property rights and freedom of contract.

For the confused: gelateria is some foreign word for an ice cream shop.

We should have listened to Rachel!

I've been aware of the ACME protocol for a while. I have tech notes going back as far as 2018, and every time I looked at it, I recoiled in horror. The whole thing amounts to "throw in every little bit of webshit tech that we can", and it makes for a real problem to try to implement this in a safe and thorough way. Many of the existing clients are also scary code, and I was not about to run any of them on my machines. They haven't earned the right to run with privileges for my private keys and/or ability to frob the web server (as root!) with their careless ways.

https://rachelbythebay.com/w/2025/05/22/ssl/

God, I love being boring, cis and not that smart.

Also, there's nothing inherently insecure about feeding secrets to an LLM, it's only one element of the lethal trifecta.

I think you're right, more evidence: "11. s From the Anthropic Team", "Boris’s single most-repeated ."

Well, what if we take the rule book learned by the embodied chinese room robot and put it in the new chinese room? What if we come up with identical rules randomly or by top-down deduction?

I know calling anti-AI people luddites was considered a shallow strawman in 2024 but now I can't help but feel this position of "we should maybe slow down the developement and adoption of new tech to protect jobs / social order / the old way of life" fits luddism well?

Cool. What are the hardware requirements? I use https://github.com/calzoneman/sync with mp4 files served by nginx and it works great for 15-20 people watching on a cheap 0.5GB ram 1 vcpu vps.

Why is this example non-encyclopedic? It's an informative, falsifiable statement that could be supported by a citation, like here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thongbu_Wainucha#:~:text=remem...

To me as someone also "deeply afraid of irritating someone or being in awkward situations", it sounds like this project is greatly expanding the surface on which awkward situations can happen? How do you decide if you should wave to the person or ignore them? Isn't it tiring? Don't you wish to be anonymous again?

Start by repeatedly occupying the same room and seeing if the other person doesn't leave. Then you can graduate to very brief eye contact. Then maybe 'hi' to the whole room and seeing if the person responds. Longer eye contact. A nod. Negative response at any point = back to square 1.

Someone pulling up a smartphone on me would feel hostile because it's violating a social contract. Maybe I'd feel betrayed and attacked if it turned out someone was recording me using glasses, but I don't know, I don't care about dashcams and this is not that much different. I imagine it feels bad and scary for women when someone takes creepshots of them, and this tech does open opportunities for that. Maybe that would be enough for me to hate glasshats if I had a bit of empathy. But isn't the genie already out of the bottle with 'deep nude' models available for everyone forever?

No, i don't think I've heard about NCII before, and Trust and Safety sounds like some corporate PR whitewashing term to me.

I admit it's hard to care for what you people can't even articulate

Because person wearing glasses usually can move and video surveillance cameras usually can't? If that's not it then spell it out for me, please. Also, why would i be deceptive in this discussion? I feel like I missed some ideological conflict.

Also make sure to avoid people with smartphones and places with video surveilence.

'consequences for giving them to kids are severe and the room for meaningful profit is close to zero, same applies here.'

I don't think it applies, the difference is that codes are digital and can be sold over the internet, anonymously, in a scallable manner.

I still like this solution because all the solutions I've seen have flaws and this one being so easy to explain makes it great to campaign for.

Is it even theoretically possible to have bearer anonymity and no reselling option at the same time?