malwrar

They log all DNS requests made to their public resolver in a searchable internal database, at least when I worked there a decade or so ago. I wonder if they seed their crawler with it?

One of my personal faves on that site: fauux.neocities.org

We really need an open protocol to build on.

I’d bet making a slack-compatible client or bridge isn’t hard, we all just instinctively know whoever develops it is going to get sued or taken down.

It feels like we quietly gave up on adversarial interoperability awhile ago, and act like we need a whole separate “open walled garden” when what we actually need are legal protections that prevent companies from suing/banning people who call their APIs. Slack, Facebook, etc, are walled gardens only because they can ban/sue people who compete with their client experience.

I figure that will probably never happen in the US (maybe if someone rich starts it), but eventually someone outside of it will make such an adversarial integration and host it from some region that doesn’t care about US laws. Then, when they get away with it, we’ll all praise them as a genius and wonder how Slack could exist at all. The US has many international agreements keeping this illusion alive, but my guess is that even formerly stable markets like Europe could spawn such work if they decide to stop caring about ~1990s-2010s era contempt-of-business-model US laws.

Perhaps “censorship” & manufacturing consent?

I think both political extremes have their own angles: liberals might be concerned that conservative censors will censor kids from learning about LGBT people and minorities, conservatives will be concerned that liberals will force too much LGBT and minority content onto kids. Or whatever issue, they want to control what your kids read!

This will almost certainly be used to censor adults too, the only reason we aren’t doing that is because it hasn’t been possible to consistently identify people before. Considering who is pushing for this, they’re absolutely going to tie this into advertising, and if they know who you are so do all of the spooky upper echelons who could implement a true censorship regime.

“The only way they can do this is by controlling what you read, shouldn’t that be the parent’s choice?”

My proposal is that we increase the effectiveness of child controls on devices, so kids can’t get access to the adult world on them. Parents in other threads however tell me that this won’t work, they’ll just use the internet on their friends devices, and what we need is to completely exclude children from the adult internet by confirming the identity of every single person who wants to use it.

Now I’m trying to convince people that identifying adults won’t work either, because kids will still get around it. All the while, we adults live with the negative externality of no longer having anonymous communication. Woe betide us all should this come to pass, but I guess desperate people are how bad things like this tend to happen.

I heard a billionaire is funding this, he’s probably afraid of the one famous instance of someone like him getting killed by one of those.

My point is that the entire check is bypassed easily and instantly, and in the meantime the government gets data that someone _will_ figure out how to make personally identifying for adults, or will argue for changes to make it so. Alcohol age limits are a simple physical check for a vice that everyone accepts those who want it can get at. I’d rather demand that device manufacturers give parents effective controls before we try solving this problem by identifying internet users wholesale.

Headline news: children infiltrate the universal adult one time password scheme for porn, parents panic! Turns out the 18 year olds started selling access to their younger friends, who resold it to their younger friends.

These things passing the Turing Test makes anthropomorphizing their behavior awkward, but don’t forget it’s just an analogy to communicate an experience. If you convey a certain written voice to these models in your input, you get a somewhat consistent end effect. I think that’s all that is being communicated.

It was precisely that for me! Another commenter captures it well; “the bitter lesson” indeed.

I’d recommend my method of just drawing out the block diagram and drawing out + digging into the math at each step! I’m the kind of person who needs to take time to ask lots of questions before stuff clicks, and if you are too I strongly recommend it.

I picked it up from trying to teach myself that SLAM stuff. The papers are very short, but highly information dense and at the time there was no ChatGPT to help me. I got through them by just creeping my way through the math with a whiteboard, and something about drawing it out and having it there in my office made it all click. Trying to watch piecemeal lectures on YouTube or grind through foundational books like MVG just didn’t work for me, I used them instead as references for my drawings.

Same happened when I tried learning this GPT stuff. karpathy’s videos were out at the time, but I couldn’t really stay focused on them or connect the math with the code. Most other descriptions I could find were focused on getting you to use their inference library or harness. Assembling the picture together on my whiteboard by focusing on drawing out the block diagram continues to be my personal favorite method for deep understanding of complex systems.

Im also a mere mortal, and after putting a few years into it IMO I’d say people make it much more complicated than it actually is. I failed most of my math courses for lack of interest, but found passion later with the aforementioned SLAM stuff. I have no doubt you or any other programmer could learn this stuff, especially since you can ask ChatGPT clarifying questions.

I have no idea about careers at this point, I’m still doing fancy IT work as my day job I and look away from the future with dread. I also haven’t been looking for new roles on the open job market, so who knows maybe there’s multimillion pay packages for anyone who can articulate how attention works in an interview.

Back when ChatGPT came out, I was so shocked by how _good_ it was for an “AI” product that I simply had to know how it worked. Over the next month I ended up drawing out a block diagram on a whiteboard I have in my office, with the math involved next to each step in the blackboard. I’d puzzle about each step along the way, and the triumph of completing the drawing was also that of this sense of deep understanding. I kept that drawing up for many months after, and would gaze at it often during meetings and idle moments in wonder.

This is to say: the autoregressive decoder-only transformer llm architecture as pioneered by openai is wildly simple for how revolutionary its results are. I was reading about non-learned classical SLAM systems (uses video + handcrafted math to produce 3d mappings of physical spaces while also locating the camera in those spaces) at the time, and comparatively speaking I’d say the math is about as complicated as ONE of the components in those complex formulations. The only reason frontier LLMs need 6-figure computers to run is because the model designers made the middle bit in those models REALLY BIG, dimensionally speaking. They just took the steam engine, made a few gargantuan versions of it, and are selling them as the ultimate source of power.

This was openai’s entire breakthrough. Making this particular model architecture larger leads to emergent capabilities like being able to pick the best ending to a story/set of instructions or answer questions about broad factual knowledge. I’ve been meanwhile watching these AI companies attempt, successfully, to sell this capability as some sort of robot consciousness hand-crafted by supergeniuses. The fact that they are getting away with it is almost as shocking to me as the discovery itself.

How do you verify someone’s age reliably without identifying them? Unless there’s some standard around zero-knowledge proofs they’re implementing that I’m not aware of, they’re probably going to end up identifying everyone as part of this system, since kids will try and bypass it and parents will demand it be made more robust. Kids will still bypass it no matter what we do.

I don’t understand how video evidence from a mass surveillance network would have helped here. They found your car without it! Shouldn’t your issue be with the prosecutor, and thus your ineffective local government?

Otherwise, what’s to stop them from just telling you video evidence isn’t enough, because jurors have become accustom to thinking that video evidence can be faked by vindictive cops?

Indeed sad, congrats on publishing your book though. I’ve certainly felt a bit of that same angst myself.

I think SWGEmu (cool project, just learned of it from you!) do represent some optimism though. Maybe these sorts of passion projects will take over the space?

Really hate to say it, but I’ve stopped publishing my work too for this reason. I spend most of my time now building my own little software ark, and I aspire to no longer think of programming in the next few years. I feel like the creative economy in general will be unrecognizable in the near future, maybe nonexistent. I wonder what modes of collaboration on ideas might form in the next few years.

I don’t think people realize that these devices can even be used that way. I talk with people outside of the tech scene frequently, and they are routinely surprised when I tell them about this sort of capability. The ring doorbell Super Bowl commercial about finding lost dogs was a genuine shock to people! I think there’s a degree of visibility you need to get people’s attention on an issue, and it’s just difficult to see a doorbell as a threat for the average person.

You know how when you finish prompting some code generator to build something, and you look over what it has built and feel a sense of emptiness even if it does what you want? I think about what I wish the prototype looked like, and basically start describing details that I expect to exist (think longer versions of e.g. “this should be using our internal graph library, and I figure we can model this task as a traversal, how far have you strayed from this and why?”) and let the agent analyze what it built against my expectations. I’ve spent hours in conversation just “refining the context” this way, and then I channel that into an update process. I figure the prototype is just about proving out behavior, and this next phase is about refining it into the pieces I’ll use elsewhere. It’s kinda fun, I’d absolutely burn out a coworker if I grilled their PRs the way I roast AI contributions :P

I’m still pretty skeptical about OpenRouter. I have a client implemented for them so I can use them with my harnesses, but at the same time that client was generated and tested in an hour or so just like all of the other llm provider clients that I have. Using these services interchangeably by just swapping out clients has so far been working well for me. I think when it comes down to it, the only real inconvenience that they’re solving is where I put my credit card number. Is there something key that I’m missing about this service (besides it being a nexus of attention) that warrants this kind of investment? Or is this truly the bar for starting a successful AI company :P

I once had someone start _arguing with me_ about stuff using generative text on Slack or generated email replies. Not even to provide information, but just to write flat denials to even continue discussion on the subject. This person had a very distinctive writing style, and the shift to the AI writing style felt pretty obvious and uncanny.

I can’t describe how disturbing it was to realize that my voice suddenly no longer mattered, and that I was speaking to something that would never get tired of creatively dismissing my ideas without ever really addressing them. This behavior compounded and was unaddressed by anyone, no one I talked to seemed willing to try actually pushing back against it. Best solution they had was to have physical meetings w/ n>1 people on each side in the room. Trust plummeted, and eventually all meetings with that team were recorded and transcripted, and people started talking like they were on stage vs trying to solve shared problems. Work ground to a halt on even basic things, and I ended up leaving. This was on a pretty major project that has a name people here would know, but don’t ask me what!

Lucky find! Just picked up one of those for a build, ohhhh boy was that a painful purchase. Thank god for my fortune to work in tech.

John Barlow refers to "your governments" as if using a computer actually separates him from the state in some meaningful way, as if he has ascended beyond the flesh and now looks down upon the world as a being of pure Mind. But of course, "cyberspace" is just computers, servers, infrastructure using power and resources and thus is inextricably subject to government and systems of law. Zion was never an escape.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here, is it that "cyberspace" couldn't exist as anything "real" because governments can just shut down servers? That's why you can't buy drugs and credit card numbers online anymore, right? Sarcasm aside, you seem to be using the fallibility of the current-popular physical layer to dismiss the otherwise separate tangible "space" that does seem to exist when lots of people can communicate fluidly with each other across vast distances. Or is your critique centered on the ability of "cyberspace" to go beyond just communication and serve as a space one can actually "live" in?

The legal pretense of ownership and copyright is all we have. If you want to abandon the idea of "ownership" altogether, then the wealthiest and most powerful still wind up controlling everything by virtue of their wealth and power.

Limiting abandonment of "ownership" to only "copyright" and IP generally, what do you propose the wealthy would control that would allow them to replicate present circumstances in "cyberspace"? The best I can think of would be communications infrastructure, and they didn't build that by themselves (at least in the US) to begin with.

For example, why would TikTok continue to be usable as a brainrot generator & propaganda tool when content is necessarily separate from the algorithm and presentation layers? Current bastards exploit their centralized control based on this house of cards ownership structure. Nothing is practically stopping users from cloning the contents from the cdn and writing a new frontend besides legal threats. This is true of almost every tech business that exists, and many of them themselves exploited this asymmetry during their founding. They exist because billionaires use the legal system to scare individual upstarts from threatening their business model.

I agree. My point in short is that we seem to reflexively frame right and wrong on an axis defined by copyright, and somehow we’ve lost sight of the fact that the law itself is used much differently than we might otherwise want.

Technolibertarians confuse free market capitalism via copyright-enabled businesses as a viable strategy for individual freedom, and we find with time that only bastards win in a competition with loose rules and high stakes. Those concerned for the continued flourishing of human creativity in the face of LLMs confuse copyright as a means for small creators to have some ownership over their work, when it actually just seems to be a cudgel that can only be wielded by the wealthiest. Same losing fight, different flavor. I ask: why do we continue to allow “ownership of ideas” to underlie the moral basis of our conversations to begin with?

It has been funny to watch people’s attitudes on copyright change ever since ChatGPT blew up. All I used to hear and experience was copyright used by corporations to shut down open source projects threatening their business models, but now it is the savior of the little guy who is a victim of flagrant corporate violators. In the background, the wealthy and powerful disregard all of this and seem to do whatever they want, and the little guy looks at millions of dollars in legal costs to defend themselves in either case. Costs that are increasingly a rounding error to their opposition as they continue to grow by exploiting a broken system, and the “little guy” now includes whole industries.

I feel like adversarial interoperability more than free market capitalism should have been the death knell for most of the negatives highlighted in this post. Everyone is still so determined to make money from mere ideas however that we still use 1700s law designed to protect book publishers to enable the existence of “businesses” so warped in valuation that they are now trillion dollar entities yet always face the existential threat of copy+paste. What if the more profound truth is that tech is beneficial to humanity but inherently worthless to sell, and that our present woe’s shape is determined by the antiquated institutions built service this illusion of value? In an inevitable future age of generative AI as an accessible technology, as opposed to a business model with a moat, what even is our goal for such institutions? What sorts of creativity do we want motivate, and what meaningful regulatory constraints even are there to begin with? I hope we figure it out soon, because IP will be impossible to enforce post-deglobalization in any case.

My point is less about Mythos specifically, more what it represents to the general public. “Mythos” has broken through and started gaining popular mindshare like “ChatGPT” did a few years ago. It now becomes hard to (falsely) claim that fixing basic flaws isn’t a priority, because now that everyone knows that it’s probably easier to hack stuff than it was in the past.

Mythos is good for cybersecurity simply because now executives can’t just tell people that only superhackers can break their stuff, as people wouldn’t believe them now anyways.

Infosec for decades has been 99% “hey I found some low-hanging fruit” only to get treated like a liability by the company you report it to, if you got acknowledgment at all. Because of Mythos though, now Artificial Superhumans can find these same vulns, and anyone could be running such an intelligence! Even better, the rich untouchable people operating this particular Artificial Superhuman can’t just be suppressed or ignored by the other set of rich untouchable people that have routinely not cared in the past. So long as it makes anthropic money, maybe we’ll actually see actual improvements in security!

There’s definitely a fear of repercussions (I’ve been commenting on this site for over a decade now! Who knows what’s in my history...) but importantly I actually take some pride in many of the comments I write. What drew me to this site originally was how high quality everyone’s perspectives and articulation was, and I suppose I view the writing voice I’ve nurtured here as unique and special to me. It’s not about compensation, I’d just hate to see some future chatbot sound 1/1,000,000th like me I guess? Hard feeling to describe, but I’d rather just not be globbed in and instead express myself in ways that aren’t profitable or feasible to copy.

I do find it hard to tolerate the feeling of being watched online. The second-most trending dataset on huggingface right now is a snapshot of HN updating at a 5 minute interval. It makes me not want to really comment at all, just like how I don’t really publish any software I write anymore.

Turns out it sucks to produce original works when you know that, whereas previously a few people at best might see your work, now it’s a bunch of omniscient robots and maybe half of those original people are using the robots instead.

And for people who successfully taken back their creative writing skills, how did you do it?

“AI is one possible reference for my actual writing”. Generate info and perspectives, but only ever write stuff yourself. Something about this for me forces me to stay in my own “”writing voice”, at least personally, for the various places I use AI tech in. I think of the tech as a chess engine; they are better than any human player but I use them to help me gain perspective rather than cheat. Otherwise, why bother playing chess?