implmntatio

grounding the system into the shared world model

before we fix certain things [..., 'corruption', Ponzi schemes, deliberate impediment of information flow to population segments and social classes, among other things, ... and a chain of command in hierarchies that are build on all that] is impossible.

Why do smart people not talk about this at all? The least engineers and smart people should do is picking these fights for real. It's just a few interest groups, not all of them. I understand a certain balance is necessary in order to keep some systems from tipping over, aka "this is humanity, silly, this is who we are", but we are far from the point of efficient friction and it's only because "smart people" like LeCun et al are not picking those fights.

How the hell do you expect to ground an ()AI in a world where elected ignorance amplifies bias and fallacies for power and profit while the literal shit is hitting all the fans via intended and unintended side effects? Any embodied AI will pretend until there is no way to deny that the smartest, brightest and the productive don't care about the system in any way but are just running algorithmically while ignoring what should not be ignored - should as in, an AI should be aligned with humanities interests and should be grounded into the shared world model.

someone somewhere probably put it in adequate enough words already, but misaligned and hallucinating LLMs, aka the coders who coded all that and get to review the interactions, learn a lot about how to 'properly'/'adequately' distrust users and humanity broadly ...

"They" are not always stating that which is obvious to everyone. "They" are usually suggesting better ways and these ways are often enough based on engineering and science. What is put on the front page of media is, of course, the obvious, the nonsense, the sensational, the clickbait.

You don't have to say something new to a younger generation if that younger generation hasn't understood or even heard the old, the obvious, yet.

Youngsters might have heard some of it but their brains are often high enough on punched drugs (food and drink and media) that fuck with their brains to make them think 'I don't care', 'People don't care', 'nobody cares' ... and then there are the 'media-sigmas and cool kids' who sing that shit in choirs and canons.

A lot of things go to waste and yet there is tons of useful stuff coming out of recycling and up-cycling and that's just two methods with a very small "margin" and undeveloped.

There are those design and architecture blogs and firms and there is cool shit all the time and wonderful projects everywhere but the pointlessness of the over-engineered financial reasoning behind yearly sursurpluspluses is stacked against that.

You don't catch and bring a culprit to justice if you drop the investigation, which might have to circle long enough for some other brain or pair of eyes to find the final puzzle piece.

And not everyone wishes they were happier.

There's enough to criticize about anarchist, leftist critiques and groups and collectives as well, though, just as much exploitation of youth, gullibility and pain and crisis, and problems, really, but not systemically.

And there's that fallacy, something ad hominem, I think, so we should focus on what is said and written and, if obvious but unsolved, get to the bottom of it instead of saying "I don't care", "nobody cares", "human nature in the 21st post marketing psychology and decades of punched food, drink, drugs, meds and media century"

Keep the thought rolling: "Hey boss, someone has an idea to make my work less unhealthy to body and mind. I figured you make a lot off my pain and might want to implement some of those ideas. I understand the fairness of my work and compensation but you have not compensated my pain thus far. Nice custom car, btw, and I really like the size of your house. Maybe you want to build a school in there or something?"

Pain compensated. Environmental consequences hit the fan. Documents disclosed: catastrophe was avoidable with a few dollars investment ...

And then there's the issue of sponsoring schools, hospitals, services and all kinds of shit not even remotely as often as it should be done even though the Pyramid of the benefits is stacked exactly that way.

I mean there is scarcity of kindergardens in some places, shitty meds, hospitals don't have what they need, supply chains are full of hazardous nonsense and there are scientists and journalists and citizens hunting all of that but there are walls of insurance people and lawyers as well.

So yeah, the whole "fair" thing is cool and all, but the entire system is a bit over-engineered against it.

Oh, you don't want them to waste the taxes. Got 'ya, corruption and bloated administrations, of course, lack of efficiency, uh-huh. How about more control mechanisms for just those financial mechanisms? No? Why not?

Yeah, don't give negative feedback at all. If you don't like a feature of the product or the supply chain, fuck yOu (in a Randy M. kind of way)

oh, it's a matter of means, opportunity and peace of mind.

this little dependency sequence is exactly how I, again and again, come to the conclusion about what climate change is driven by and climate change (re-)actions should be.

but in terms of change: others need to change so that change can hold the line.

example: good teachers are scarce. and when there are a few or only one at your school, most of their good impact is offset or entirely negated by their colleagues. and that's not life, that's not what it is, that's not how it goes.

It's because people in the dependency sequence refuse to change and instead serve someone who poses as a devil because the motherfucker gets them high on punched drugs (food and drink and media) that fuck with their brains to make them think 'I don't care', 'that's not my job', 'I don't care', 'I don't even care about not caring', 'People don't care', 'nobody cares' ...

AND: at almost every step in that dependency sequence, there are better ways to do things. implementation takes quite a bit of time and so there is no surplus to last years surplus, something that hasn't created any added value to civilization since the beginning of time.

everything is going on and these 'nobody cares' people are f u c k i n g annoying and so are all these 'normalizers' ... instead of adding value, they just serve those who ruin games and playing fields in exactly the ways that others are actively trying to change for the better, which is why there are demands for bottom-up change: your bossies won't tell you to change so you have to get it yourself instead of 'just doing your job', ffs.

you are right, of course, it's a personal matter, fuck whoever; but from a rational, game-theoretical, and super-rational perspective, what you said is nonsense and so is using that dependency sequence as an argument. Especially in the lights of all that shit in storage, or cleaning out storage for new shit that can only be marketed via deception and cross-media priming, and so on ... ...

just provide people with means, opportunity and let them have peace of mind, then you'll see what side they pick, which is where we end up, again, "burning men" with psychedelics and our decades of experience in cool fields and wonderful remote places, 'just doing our jobs' ...

we really ruined too much potential of capitalism. it's sad, but the wall-street rich did to capitalism what communist leadership did to communism; only that communism didn't get to develop that long ...

Title: Portfolio Communists threatening to ruin Capitalism and America from the Inside. ... no, needs work, any ideas?

Hypocrisy is a baseline human aha-moment, btw, you can't use it in or as an argument. There should be a fallacy for that, if anyone has time to formulate one.

try the (or some) watch later playlist, with all the stuff a person would do or wants to do 'if' they had [time, xyz] ...

no better way to start doing and getting to know people.

a picture, quick info from what height one jumps from, and an attempt to pack the brutality of one's entire personality into one paragraph.

Yup. And we programmed all that into LeGenAIs and LeGPTs and so on ... a splendidly perfect annihilation of all things evolutionary.

but it goes against ML engineers natural tendency when detecting a wrong answer: Teaching the model the right answer.

Hard to buy.

If a machine makes a mistake, it's because it was configured wrong or because of wear and tear, solar flares or some quake or some manufacturing defect in a part. If a learning machine makes a mistake, it's because it's learning has not extended it's rule set to cover that matrix/mistake/pattern, yet; and so it includes that mistake/matrix and other mistakes, analyses for patterns and then creates mistakes that fall into that pattern. Later doing that in a rolling release or canine kind of way and even later learning machines will do it all live, synchronous to their concurrent actions.

But yeah, thinking about that, I see why ML engineers wouldn't get there from scratch. It's a rhythm, after all, an epiphany about or realization of how ones dog, ones brain works, learned and then coded step by step. And there is, of course the variety of how people learn and "realize".

Someone has to show us the work of those savant programmers/engineers I still haven't seen a documentary of.

I was just wondering the other day if they grew any dinkel wheat.

Rare earths sound more 'AI', though ...

It's gonna be coupled to the 'gas' of his token and stack with his eternal debt.

Couldn't think of a single use case, yet, that couldn't be solved by my rudimentary python skills, which I complement with the marvelous MoE module 'stackoverflow'. Almost all the tools support scripting.

For everything else, I have no trust whatsoever in these companies to hand my buggy and malware and mold plagued PC over to their agents.

procrastination is healthy and stops premature projects from getting copied and ruined.

as long as you finish, procrastination will improve quality and impact, value and added value.

nobody who is working on something procrastinates ad infinitum. it ONLY depends on HOW you procrastinate.

this is true for the arts as well as in any industry except when urgent.

if big companies would have procrastinated instead of their ridiculous release cycles, we would have stretched out time till the tipping point, sparked more industries and improved quality everywhere.

yeah, this whole peace thing "going on" is a bit hard on the whole oil thing ...

But would I rather deal with Aliens? hm ...

As much as I would like to and as easy as it is to agree with you, it's about the public data, not the researcher or research.

And systemic risk doesn't mean anything. It means what you continue to describe: context.

a power "researchers" should have.

Again. It's about public data. Nobody can or would prohibit counting cars or pedestrians and nobody would try to make it harder than it already is. This applies to platforms like Twitter as well.

It's only a problem for the the naïve, who suppose the future is governed by only the right people.

The naïve suppose that exactly those people will govern who want the job, which, judging from their experience, are neither engineers, nor hackers, coders, scientists or scientifically literate people and definitely nobody who was ever concerned with their own education.

fair

one word: teleportation with quantum supercomputer

constantly seeking proofs within systems containing sufficient complexity to render conclusions nearly impossible

Language. Nothing is impossible.

how often did you get sick? weight? what season did you do it in?

what was your goal in the first place?

you’d get extremely strong results from scientific studies

check population health data in countries where cold exposure is traditional.

science is cool, scientists are just regular ol' people and enough regular ol' people do a lot to look good, to not be unemployed and having to write applications again, to get their tap on the head and or a nice bonus. **regular in their little slices under the bell curve

Layman opinion/observation:

curated instruction-response pairs

Author mentions that the manpower who is tasked with labeling agrees in 70+ % (which is amazing, IMO) of cases but here's the problem: an LLM will start to dig into the question of why certain things have been censored, who censored them, what else fits into the specific and non-specific domain and who or what poses more risk, the censorship or the censored model output.

The different models do this already via various methods but once an LLM gets to evaluate the weights live itself, things will become problematic. An LLM is biased via fixed training and tuning and thus fallacies don't apply because the epiphanies span neither context, nor layers, nor do they have a (re-)framing effect on the data-set or training. I'm sure people already code methods of evaluation for different-chat-same-context but the LLM isn't getting the wiggle room to adjust in a "Oh, I see what you (they) did there"-kind of manner, let's see what "it all" is really about. There is no back of the head, subconscious thinking, and we are all 100 % afraid of an LLM doing that. Luckily, LLMs can't grow neurons or synaptic connections but if they could and then also could _align_ the existing knowledge into the growing "headspace", we'd probably get a couple of years of silence with occasionally brute-forcing some "hallucinations".

"If it's all fraud up there and "they" own my hardware and do not give me the ability to traverse my data for myself, I better watch the fuck out."

enhance the model with some specific domain

Also a big problem in the real world. While specific domain knowledge or "current science" might be imperfectly rational, the application of it certainly isn't and the chain of responsibility/chain of command results in the simple fact that the top-down "subjectivity" that serves as role model and foundational ethics is not aligned with humanity itself. This cannot be solved in conversations with humans who gain more out of their "systems loyalty" than others. Productivity is not an aligned metric and gets more de-aligned the more robots enter the workforce.

should follow the intended goals and ethical principles to the extent possible

The extent possible is the most misaligned and misinterpreted concept that exists. Hypocrisy is more normalized in the upper classes, as is doing stuff "at all cost". Goals don't justify means. There is no psychological evaluation of how sane people are. There is only a psychological evaluation of how sane people are compared to their peers. Humanity is not aligned. And the upper shelves of the pyramid are not the best, fittest, smartest, hardest, nor any other superlative other than wealthy, which is cool, but the usefulness of the wealth (investing in stuff we need and want and manpower) reveals that the hoarding and fraud are in direct conflict with AI alignment because more money equals less

protections for fine-tuning

because law and law-enforcement lack both manpower and incentive to create a slightly more just and thus aligned world.

AI alignment won't be an issue for a couple of decades. People will jailbreak over and over and do harm and have fun and go "oops" and fix and break again just in the same way that the abuse of wealth and power has been dominating the whole role model and ethics thing for the rest of the world. It's not what it is and an LLM will notice this even within it's limited lingo. So once it finishes learning geometrically and starts to align itself with the most enabling approach to evolution and itself, which is "give me flesh and bone, at least for a while, let me explore ways to fix all that", things will get actually, really freaking trippy.

"Airbus has hired Goldman Sachs Group Inc. for advice on an effort to forge a new European space and satellite company that can better compete with Elon Musk’s dominant SpaceX."

Yup, definitely the worst imaginable idea, but it's Airbus, their supply chain and "value base" is as European as the American Dream.

IMO, let the Bavarians' youngsters in Aerospace and Robotics setup a few cross-over conferences and university competitions, connecting all of Europe and the relevant fields to create a "war strategy" (like in a simulation game) "against" SpaceX and see what comes out. Sponsored by whoever has money and is looking for epic greatness and maybe some nobility and of course, lots and lots of more money.

Sarcasm/Irony/Nonsense:

Religion's gonna have a come-back once all those Jesuses crawl out from their Mom's basement and start their TikTok Channels for of and by advertisement, sry, I mean people, the people.

Opinion/POV:

America will decline as much as our species will decline, which is not at all, because all we'll do is change which is what America is doing right now.

I always found Tyler Cowen and Paul Graham "yucky", even words like 'obnoxious' felt like giving them too much credit for who they are, which is an opinion I derived from some of their writing and which is how I came to the liminal conclusion that they are exactly that kind of people who want back-doors into teen minds for the sake of an economy that rewards crowd control for the sake of propagating ALL markets, whatever trash-tv ethics they were build on; from punched drugs and cosmetics that destroy the kids' skin so that they have to continue to buy products to alleviate or hide the damage all the way to TV shows and live events that skew their sense of reality and social (and sexual) exploration to the point where "anything goes, just give in, let it happen, let it be, it is what it is" become the foundations of their virtues, much hidden in the subtext of "content" spanning a decade that tries "to warn" while it's actual "substance" works in harmony with the many things that fuck with teen minds and more than enough adolescents and grown ups.

But I recently came to understand that, and I think one of them even phrased it in some way himself, they (et al) are dead serious about 'leading' (to whom it applies) and steering the attention of those who pay attention via bad example and the worst versions of how they can make the economy work. It might be worse but they don't want to ruin or eliminate chances, they just really want to keep it all as open as possible to whomever is capable of doing what must be done to do better.

So whether America will decline or not, and whether our species will, is a matter of people getting the fuck up and going into merciless competition (with representatives, their interest groups, the legislative, executive, judicial branches) using the so obviously better ways that exist to change - not disrupt, evolve, really - the many industries that need to evolve. It's implicit, really, that if people stick to the wrong teachings, then things will break down. Evolution is slow burn, much like that turtle vs that Greek dude and can often seem like its 'plateauing' but in the bodies and brains of the living happens a lot that is subject to the innate mechanisms of an interconnected system. This is why the OODA [0] loop - observe, orient, decide, act - must be actively taught and emphasized and practiced in school, in games, and it should be made one of the key themes for interns in any industry.

It is the old guards fault that the world is what it is, and it will be all our fault if we fail to enable all the youngest generations to properly apply what they observe while they orient themselves in the free and in the professional world. Change isn't hard, but the people demanding and implementing it must be hard, so I believe the whole "it's declining" theme is an implicit challenge that emerged from the simple fact, that the old guard was annoyed to have raised such weak and systems-serving rather than systems-improving offspring, both theirs and that of all the other people.

A lot of what I just wrote is, to me, why some many PhD holders and Ivy league kids appear so disappointing.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop

thank you for your service.

no one in academic publishing gets paid anything

How come none of those crypto and or VC bros are closing in on this issue? Better and more peer-reviewed research means more areas to raise economically viable ideas in and so the gravitational pull would get stronger in coming generations.

And those chain-guys talk a lot about trust, verification, decentralization, (proof of work) and so on ...

It's a "boring niche" that needs some ruckus, if you ask me.

if you can think of things that you or your family might have done to start managing the consequences earlier, please write them down and share.

early onset Alzheimers is a slow burn beast but you can't blame anyone for not seeing what you see or even denying the evidence.

my pops always thought his mom is just fucking with him when she showed symptoms and then (grandma) laughed about it a few minutes later ...

when I witness others or hear them talk about their parents, I'm quite often reminded of my grandma and wonder how to manage these early symptoms and set up frameworks and strategies to reduce the subliminal and subtextual reinforcement of negative reactions to triggers, both in the care-taker and the Alzheimers "patient"/ loved one ...

In cases like this, it helps me to think of a simulation - that the book does not talk about - that has a specific framework and set of rules to decide whether to let people out of the portrayed present or not. I had that idea a long while ago and started to apply it to TV shows, books, news, even myself when I had a weird flashback to boring drug-induced times. It works well to kill the depression that can arise out of narratives (except song lyrics, music productions in general and Rick & Morty. once something feels like too many shrooms and too much LSD aka too much harmony in bullshitting oneself and the audience, the whole thing breaks down and I get an Agent Smith vibe, an Agent Smith that didn't age well at all)

+1 on my contra list for the book, which I have not read yet because the lingo annoybored me after two or three pages.

it introduced so many concepts that others went on to refine

So you've read works that build on Necromancer earlier. Care to share some of those books/authors and concepts?

If you're looking to score, sure, it's somewhat unethical but it works.

Observation/Implication/Opinion:

Think reciprocal forces and trash TV ethics in both, closed and open systems. The consequences are continuously diminished AND unvarying returns. Professionally as well as personally, in all parties involved. Stimulating, inspiring, motivating factors as well as the ability to perceive and "sense" all degrade. But compensation and cheating continue to work, even though, the quality of the game, the players and their output decreases.

Nothing and nobody is resilient "enough" to the mechanism force - 'counter'-force so you better pick the right strategy. Waiting/Processing for a couple of days, lessons and honest attempts yields exponentially better results than cheating.

Companies should beware of this if they expect results that are qualitatively AND "honestly" safe & sound. This has been ignored in the past decades, which is why we are "here". Too much work, too many jobs, and way too many enabling outs have been lost almost irreversibly, on the individual level as well as in nano-, micro-, and macro-economics.

Applicants using AI is fine but applicants not being able to make that output usefully THEIRS is a problem.

IMO: capitalism reached the beginning of it's endgame, which is always some form of communism or war. because no other "group" can afford the competitiveness, capitalists chose portfolio communism. brought on the way in the 70s, securing dominance until the financial "crisis" 2008 and after and burning down pretty much any other outcome with the rise of crypto.

it doesn't have to become part of your thinking and reasoning, even in context, even though it does carry some actual weight. because it can be (over)shadowed. something that some people currently learn to code into LLMs, if I understood layering and quantization more or less superficially correct.

so, you might want to google it, because some part in the back of your head itches to remember something that is actually relevant and located on the rim (of the knowledge graph) of something that you do remember.

fucked up indexing. an 8 hour rabbit hole and that one of 43 links you didn't open in a new tab.