HN user

drtgh

492 karma
Posts3
Comments337
View on HN

LLMs are vectorial databases with losses. They use the characters(bits) in the input question to index the query, and are quite bad at retaining the context of such query. This is why companies have named the split and shortening of the length of those inputs as "agents".

They named it like this due they follow a marketing that personify the names of the methods, to make people believe they are dealing with a different technology, including the named 'thinking' methods that simply query twice to increase the index of the next query, and so on.

I think introducing aliens and robots will make children believe it is magic, like if intelligent entities or a thinking were behind the answers/procedures, and that such "answers" are smarter than them or even their parents, when in reality, it is a marketing personified model joining statistical characters(bits) from the text with created such a vectorial database with loses, and guaranteed errors presence, with joins like a pachinko machine.

China at least has begun cutting foreign-language programs because such AI translation is seen as the way of future. Once this tool becomes adopted enough societally, the learning of foreign languages is going to become a very niche hobby.

If this happens, professional or reliable translations will only be accessible to those who can afford/pay them, leaving everyone else stuck with the errors produced by LLMs.

To use machine translation, one have to know the language to review the output; otherwise, you're doomed to mistakes. Whatever you do with LLMs, the same thing will happen.

I would name all the marketing surrounding the A"I" as the LLM's blindness virus, or something similar.

But chat control and age verification are different things.

Although they appear to be different different things at first sight, they share the same agenda and objective, mass surveillance and identification of the citizens. Once the door is opened, it can be expected that things will not end there; Politicians and their patrons will exploit this data under "committees" (and of course be excluded from such surveillance as an aggravating factor).

Nowadays it's needed a court order to access legally to the privacy of citizens, and this must be done by the Police or the Interpol, nevertheless someones want to break this.

If they were really worried by the citizens security, they would increase the number of police and judges working in this digital divisions, among other things related to this.

It goes even further than that. since we don’t know what causes Alzheimer’s, what they’re doing is trying to cure their own laboratory-induced symptoms in mice. It’s like trying to fix a car’s ABS system by simulating tire slippage.

This is so obvious that the only thing I can think is that they simply don't care. They just want to find something that masks the symptoms (perhaps to keep patients dependent on the drug for life if they succeed).

What causes Alzheimer gentlemen? very few people is really trying to solve this answer.

Is it even known what causes the moments of lucidity in patients? Molecules should be mapped to identify the patterns (and therefore track possible sources).

Googlebook 2 months ago

Surveillance PC, the product will be the people's collected data.

(they've gone to the next level this time)

AI could repeat this pattern at a larger scale — generating faster results within the existing paradigm, while the structural conditions for disruptive science remain unchanged or worsen.

Worsen. LLMs discard/loses and mixes data on their statistical "compression" to create their vectorial database model. Across the time, successive feed back will be homologous to create a jpg image sourcing a jpg image that was created from another jpg image, through this "gaussian" loop.

Those faster (but worst) results will degrade real valuable data and science at a speed/rate that will statistically discard good done science on a regular basis, systematically.

IMHO.

Why did you used the "untrusted code" term? sounds like if you were delegating all the weight over the user's shoulders,

two years ago, trusted code like xz-utils [0] had seven months of freedom in the infected systems.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39891607

its not related to x11

Ideally one want to detect malware the earlier possible, and try to restrict what they can do from the beginning, until is noticed.

In this case Wayland, voluntarily or not, it's more restrictive than X11 with the access to screen and keyboard.

I know, I know, later the reply of the community will be a couple of downvotes more and "that already existed", "you could use, bla bla bla", and this is how Linux is ten years (minimal) behind Windows in tooling for this matter ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Keyloggers for example.

Linux always has been a system were the existence of malware was ignored, specially Desktop, contrary to other OSes (tooling included). But since a couple of years ago can be observed (I observe) slooow movements trying to correct this colossal mistake.

If this is the best way to do it or not, I do not enter. I particularly just welcome most of the advancements about this matter in Linux due such absence of worrying, keeping my fingers crossed that the needed tooling arrives on time (ten years behind Windows, I think).

It seems to me your design goal is fundamentally incompatible with a lot of the specific complaints of negligence. If you want a design that doesn't melt down when there is an earthquake and a tsunami, then moving the reactor to higher ground isn't helpful because it won't achieve the design goal.

My goal? My solution? My design!? you must be now kidding,

- GE original design 30-35 meters above the sea.

- Warnings about reinforce safety along one decade.

- Tsunami at Fukushima's nuclear plant, 15 meters above the sea.

I wasn't going to reply but that seems like it moves the conversation forward; so why not?

Foward to... nothing it seems. You just replied with hypotheticals like if the event didn't happened, and as if such event would have been impossible to avoid, with some kind of dissociative reflexions that surpass the cynicism. I'm the one that is not going to reply.

I'm just not sure where you are going with that, it doesn't obviously suggest negligence to me.

You didn't read the report or search for information about the matter, but I have not problem to repeat it for you,

The General Electric's design was originally designed to be placed 30-35 meters above the ocean, instead of this TEPCO modified such design and constructed at sea level (almost) recurring to studies convenient to their purpose, cheaper, this in one of the more tsunami-prone countries, with an history of ones reaching 20-30 meters. When those -for them- convenient studies was not longer justifiable, as deeper studies did finally refute them, they decided to just keep ignoring all the warnings and requests to reinforce the safety. They knew the nuclear plant was in danger, they always knew it, General Electric didn't designed at 30-35 meters above the ocean by coincidence, and this happened with a supposed regulator always closing the eyes to this, conveniently, across those years, ignoring even pipes with fissures.

Well, this obviously suggest negligence to me. Decades of bad decisions with a strong smell to corruption.

You're not saying what tolerances you want them to design to.

What about tolerance to avoid a meltdown of the core, specially under two events, an earthquake and a tsunami, exactly what happened after ignoring the warnings and requests to reinforce the safety.

Oh well then. I had no idea. I thought the consequences were minor and now I have learned ... there you go, I suppose. I'm not really sure what to do with this new information.

Keep the sarcasm for other places, if you don't mind. It is not a mere gentlest engineering disaster as it reached the whole planet, with ate TEPCO's cesium-137, specially the Japanese. And it is not a mere gentlest engineering disaster when you have to force vulnerable people to go to ground zero to move contaminated land and water.

Did you read the report I put? the pdf,

    << The Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant construction was based on the seismological knowledge of more than 40 years ago. As research continued over the years, researchers repeatedly pointed out the high possibility of tsunami levels reaching beyond the assumptions made at the time of construction, as well as the possibility of reactor core damage in the case of such a tsunami. However, TEPCO downplayed this danger. Their countermeasures were insufficient, with no safety margin.>>

    << By 2006, NISA and TEPCO shared information on the possibility of a station blackout occurring at the Fukushima Daiichi plant should tsunami levels reach the site. They also shared an awareness of the risk of potential reactor core damage from a breakdown of sea water pumps if the magnitude of a tsunami striking the plant turned out to be greater than the assessment made by the Japan Society of Civil Engineers.>>
Even leaving aside they ignored the original placement in order to reduce costs by using biased seismological reports of their convenience, TEPCO knew the plant was at risk, they was warned successively it was at risk. And the supposed regulator NISA [0] closed the eyes conveniently (conveniently for someones).
    << TEPCO was clearly aware of the danger of an accident. It was pointed out to them many times since 2002 that there was a high possibility that a tsunami would be larger than had been postulated, and that such a tsunami would easily cause core damage.>>
From the other url I put (I updated it with a cached url, I didn't noticed the article was deleted),
    << there appear to have been deficiencies in tsunami modeling procedures, resulting in an insufficient margin of safety at Fukushima Daiichi. A nuclear power plant built on a slope by the sea must be designed so that it is not damaged as a tsunami runs up the slope.>>
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_Industrial_Safety_...

the gentlest engineering disaster

EU raised the maximum permitted levels of radioactive contamination for imported food following Fukushima, this is not a gentlest gesture to the Europeans. Japanese citizens also received their dose, at time the more vulnerable ones was recruited by the Yakuza to clean up the zone.

In Japan they have the "Tsunami Stones" [0] across the coast, memorials to remind future generations of the highest point the water reached.

It was negligent to construct a nuclear plant at sea level, it was just a plant waiting to be flooded, and for such case they had ten years to design protections after being requested to reinforce measures (along with the other Japanese plants), but I can imagine the ones that should put the money was not very collaborative (I even doubt if such responsible learnt the lesson).

[0] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/century-old-warnin...

If it was a cheese model or not I do not enter (notice that parent of parent and me are different users), their negligence breaks all the possible logic we could apply without introducing the corruption's variable behind such decades of bad decisions.

Fukushima was designed to be constructed on a hill 30-35 meters above the ocean, but someones decided would be cheaper to construct it at sea level in order to reduce costs in water pumping, others decided to approve this, and much latter, one decade before the disaster when was requested to reinforce the security measures within all the reactors at Japan, those in charge of Fukushima decided to ignore it, again, pushing for extensions year after year until it all blew up. Decades of bad decisions with a strong smell to corruption.

https://warp.da.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/3856371/naiic.go.jp...

https://warp.da.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/3856371/naiic.go.jp...

https://web.archive.org/web/20210314022059/https://carnegiee...

Plus, related (storage), you do not want to put hydroelectric in water reservoirs targeted to population consumption, as you could find out one summer that the reservoirs are empty, the result of such water being used with the intention of generate electricity, or even used as inertial stabilizer for renewables.

This is the moment were at the news you read "There's a drought because it isn't raining" and similar excuses, when in reality your five years of water's reservoirs become reduced to half -or one third- due they focused the electricity production over the population real water demand.

I mean, hydroelectric needs at least two level’s reservoirs, one to generate electricity (or even exclusive two level's reservoirs with water pumps for this), and the next one, absolutely untouchable by the electric companies, targeted as water storage for the population/agriculture, the classic more than five years reservoir, for real.

Not only the US. In the updated post [1] that was deleted at Reddit [2], it is commented there are three firms confirmed operating for Meta in both EU and US jurisdictions,

Firm: Trilligent (APCO Worldwide subsidiary), EU Role: EUR 680K for AI Act, DMA, DSA. US Connection: APCO offices in DC; Meta VP calls them "integrated members of our Meta team".

Firm: White & Case LLP, EU Role: EUR 50-100K. digital markets/services. US Connection: Lead international outside counsel, 70+ lawyer team.

Firm: FTI Consulting Belgium, EU Role: EUR 10-25K. US Connection: Subsidiary of FTI Consulting Inc (NYSE: FCN, HQ Washington DC).

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20260314074025/https://www.reddi...

[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1rtd51g/update_i_pul...

This sounds like the mere tip of the iceberg, as it is commented that they maintain two separate networks with no overlap (their age verification lobbying goes through local specialists with no international footprint).

Edit:

https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/trilligent?rid=5168569461...

Trilligent (APCO Worldwide subsidiary), clients for closed financial year, Jan 2024 - Dec 2024,

- meta platforms ireland limited and its various subsidiaries, 50'000€ - 99'999€: EU Green Deal, EU AI Act, the European strategy for a better internet for kids (BIK+), online safety.

- verifymy limited ( age verification business), 0€ - 10'000€: Digital Services Act; eIDAS Regulation; Strategy for a better Internet for kids (BIK+); EU Artificial Intelligence Act; General Data Protection Regulation.

- user rights gmbh, 0€ - 10'000€: Digital Services Act.

It would not be debris produced by a decoupling that loses speed, with decrease their centripetal force progressively, so therefore progressively they fall to the earth, deorbit.

It would be a cluster of successive collisions in a short period of time. With each collision, each destroyed satellite would produce hundreds of thousands of microfragments at increased speeds, with would make them reach different orbits.

The microfragments at lower heights of LEO would decrease their speed due the atmosphere within months to a few years, and the ones at higher heights of LEO from decades to centuries, but this ones, at time they loses such speed they would decrease the height of their orbits and sweep across their new orbiting area (like a net/mesh), their kinetic energy would keep being able to destroy or damage what they cross.

If it were done it would be like a planned Kessler Syndrome event, and LEO is currently saturated with satellites.

The vendor becomes a strategic chokepoint, and there's no precedent for how that plays out in a peer conflict.

If you turn commercial infrastructure into a military tool, you put it within the firsts rows of targets' list to dismantle in case of conflict.

Given the large number of Starlink's satellites, you will inevitably have to use their own space debris to dismantle them, which will turn the LEO orbit inoperable (for centuries). With this you reduces the agility that was giving those satellites.

You would therefore be forcing the use of military satellites placed at higher orbits (lower resolution, number, more use of fuel, slower) and also forcing to use military airplanes and drones to fly over your territory (exposition).

Basically I read the article as a warning.

That is not a good idea. To deal with LLMs one need to have knowledge about the topic of the query, case contrary one will not be able to detect the errors of their output-prompts. The test is easy, if after one or three queries one do not detect the errors, one is done, the person is reading the output-prompts in passive mode.

The self-learn path require also to cultivate a intuition that comes from searching and reading technical doc that a LLM will not give you, among other things.

Anyway, I observe how the warning of the other user about this got downvoted and critiqued. I expect the same, and leave this thread with peace of mind subscribing to such warning, as a message to the OP.

Exactly, it is subprime reloaded. They have no scruples, rating agencies either, they intend to socialize the loses of their greed bets, again. I hope everything blows up before they can do it. Anyway, they should go to prison for what they intend to do.

Not a case, society call them sociopaths. Witch includes power struggle, manipulation and physiological abuse of the people around them.

Example, Sam Altman and OpenAI hoarding 40% of the RAM supply as unprocessed wafers stored in warehouses bought with magical bubble investors money in GPUs that don't exist yet and that they will not be able to install because there's not enough electricity to feed such botched tech, in data centers that are still to be built, with intention to punch the competence supply, and all the people of the planet in the process along two years (at least).

TSMC Risk 6 months ago

storage from $40 to $100, memory 16GB DDR4 from $67 to $190, 32GB DDR4 from $72 to $263, in the last six months. I other currencies the amount it from higher to much higher.

Average low-end technology at prices of extra mega top tier technology.

You are saying people will buy, and smile without resistance saving months to pay those abusive prices for low-end tech, even knowing this is because four or five companies are hoarding the market. Take for sure people is really tired/sick of this, check the forums.

China, are you reading this? You should study this along the months. Then you can make your own conclusions.

TSMC Risk 6 months ago

By "consumers" you mean by people buying top tier gaming PCs (and either without one already or unwilling to wait).

Good try. We are talking about a window of X years were the average normal consumer, average people, will not be able to buy tech, and should not buy tech, due the prices will put, has already put, average low-end technology at prices of extra mega top tier technology, anything with a memory or disk or CPU ( too expensive, this is an abuse, it is better to wait given the current terms).

This pause were the tech supply is not destined to the average consumer (who is being abused due this) is the perfect window for China to take Taiwan if they plan the strategy well.

And it is not needed even to predict, Chinese government just need to follow/observe the prices and discomfort, and if the pattern follows, it is the moment. The average consumer, the people, even will aim them.

TSMC Risk 6 months ago

I do not know if China could find a better window to take Taiwan,

Big tech manufacturers are treating consumers like crap by selling chips and memory to over-invested start-up companies that will go bankrupt, as these products will not be profitable due to the high costs (the technology that would make them profitable does not exist and has not even been conceived), in addition to the low long-term quality of what they offer.

The thing is, right now, billions of consumers around the world see how those big tech manufacturers are not serving them the pieces they need, and that such techs will not do in the near future with fair prices (prices abuse escalation, the consumers lost their strength).

Right now, if China takes Taiwan, 2026-2027, even if they lose the fabs, the billions of consumers in this planet will see this as a real f** you big techs, f** you overinvested startups hoarding, go go China, as we realize that we are third category citizens in this "first the riches" spiral, and will be no much difference of what is going on now.

If China takes his media news cards right, and makes know the consumers this is a revolution, and combine it with one of the numerous Taiwan's corruption scandals, I bet they will not find the opposition from citizens around the world that they would find in a different period of time.

The output of the prompts always needs peer review, scrutiny. The longer is the context, the longer it will deviate, like if a magnet were put nearer and nearer to a navigation compass.

This is not new, as LLMs root are statistics, data compression with losses, It is statistically indexed data with text interface.

The problem is someones are selling to people this as the artificial intelligence they watched at movies, and they are doing it deliberately, calling hallucinations to errors, calling thinking to keywords, and so on.

There is a price to pay by the society for those fast queries when people do not verify such outputs/responses, and, unfortunately, people is not doing it.

I mean, it is difficult to say. When I hear some governments are thinking in to use LLMs within the administrations I get really concerned, as I know those outputs/responses/actions will nor be revised nor questioned.

Some basic permissions like Android, but the rest would need to be lower level, more like the configuration file of a firewall with intrusion detection system, let say, to use io_uring needing explicit permissions, the access to some memory regions, and so on.

Nowadays I think packages should turn to portable applications isolated within their own directories. Those directories would have an standard libraries directory that the application would use.

Latter, if desired, the system, could override those libraries with another ones (newer compatible or patched), more thinking is needed about this. The key, from the process point of view, would to limit the access of such process to their own directories and some very limited system only local services by default,

And to extend this permissions, each binary in such directory would need to be in companion of a permissions request file that would require the approbation from the user or the system defaults patterns (each distro would have a point of view I guess), in the aim of improve process isolation and system, drivers, services access permissions.

This would need also restructure the console philosophy, how can manage the processes, and so on, that would need a big restructuration.

I mean, anyway people is duplicating space with containers trying to isolate process, remark in trying.

I know this is unrealistic due the deep change it would suppose, so consider I'm just thinking out loud.

PS: If you answer it already exists with AppArmor, SELinux, etc, then you did not understood the root of the issue with such modules.