nnq

DragoChat - https://www.facebook.com/ai.drago.chat <~~^(o_o)^

TINY attempt to fight the growing divide between "AI haves" and "AI have-not" with

- PREPAID access (+ bring-your-own-API-keys alternatives for more technical users) to premium models (ChatGPR plus and above)

- multi-channel access (SMS/MMS, Whatsapp + many many more) to give ANYONE, ANYWHERE, regardless of how non-technical they are access to absolute TOP/SOTA model advisors with easy access in their language + fact checkers + more (think african farmers looking for intelligence to grow best crops, former delinquents lookeing for rehavilitation, absolutely anyone deservers ACCESS TO INTELLIGENCE)

- zero lock-in - paid (freemium, but no adds) product, but 100% open data formats, sharing, import/export etc.

STAGE: prototype for personal use as a whatsapp bot+ webui, somewhat usable for us but still wip, next stage is building accounts and payments for EU access, next for US/international

At least Penrose himself has an excuse for this: he's actually intellectually honest and came to this from a mathematics first purely theoretical perspective - he might have been deluded by others' trashy science, but he didn't go on to delude others.

It's funny that while it's great to also keep this perspective open as an interesting theoretical avenue, and Penrose is worth appreciating as a very original thinker... all the "evidence" for quantum consciousness theories is probably pure junk sci =)

I was basically always slowed down by RAM on Android - prob bc I switch between lots of very badly coded apps... so even on desktop I've grown to see RAM as "insurance against badly written code" as in "I'll still be able to run that memory leaky crapware and get what I need done" or in "I'll just spin up a VM for that crap that only runs on that other OS"...

Swimming in badly written SPAs and cordova/whatever hybrid apps is seriously helped by eg 12GB of RAM on a mobile :)

...so, you haven't used Android in over a decade?

you can also translate "being useless" as "they having no reason to manipulate me into slaving as a cog in their machine/society/whatever"... I'd say uselessness should be our highest aspiration, when people higher up have no need to constantly brainwash you and social condition you into being just another cog in the machine you get true freedom.

this is cool, but try C (modern, C99) instead: all I see in this C++ version is obsfucation and confusingly named things...

(sure, for an "industrial strength" version C++'s features are worth the cost, but for learning/education I never saw the appeal of classes and objects and smart pointers and stuff)

"Eugenics" is a wide term. What part of it are you against strongly enough to completely condemn anyone involved with the idea?

At the most basic romantic selection level we're all doing it after all... it's how evolution works.

At least appreciate his honesty - it's way better for everyone to be so blunt about it.

Besides the missed irony, I mean that we need to have and we'll inevitably have a separate internet layer / set of protocols / etc. where information will be freely broadcastable and exchangeable without enforcement of any laws. We de-facto have it now too, but it's practically geek-only hence no real "broadcast" to masses of people function can be achieved.

And that once such tech becomes usable by a large percent of the general population (by eg. allowing "unsecure" websites to "do anything") and we make the mistake to add a truly functional and anonymous money transfer technology to this layer of information tech, we're royally screwed as a species.

I obviously don't want a lawless and free for all regular/default internet because on the regular internet we exchange real money and we have real identities. I'm perfectly OK with having lawless layer of information exchange and broadcasting (it's just a natural generalization and globalization of "free speech" and I think it's crucial for humanity) and even working to making them usable by the general population, as long as we don't allow any serious kind of money transfer and commerce to happen through them. Eg. A psycho posting a killing video once a decade is no biggie and would happen anyway, let's at least enjoy it / groups of psycho creating a market and industry for their "products", not ok. Two random guys planning to meet to exchange some guns for some money is no biggie and already happens anyway; trading weapons on scales to supply real wars not ok. Etc.

De-facto "having sites op-out of anti-fraud legislation" or of "human rights" protections is already happening, and is less obvious because of the centralized nature of our current internet. A less centralized internet will just allow it to happen in the open in theory. Only it won't because since they're already doing other more serious illegal stuff and don't want to draw attention.

PP's "Bizarre idea. Should websites be allowed" thinking was just funny and ridiculous at the same time: there's nothing bizzare, thing are already happening (naturally) like this, and ofc it's happening discretely (eg. having telegram or other messaging app groups instead of http websites but performing similar functions etc etc) and in the silence bc ppl doing them do even more illegal stuff and nobody wants attention from authority or ppl concerned with morality ...and I couldn't help make fun of it a bit. It's the kind of guys that argue against free speech and yell the "but think of the kids" argument at us all the time, and it's tiresome to have to trick them all the time since reasoning with them doesn't work...

So suggesting that maybe we should bring what's already happening anyway in the open, base it on more open standards technology, have it be indexable by search engines etc. :P I'd rather have a legal:any flag that I can add to a google search when I want to go off the beaten track then to have to switch the program/protocol I'm using (and the browser should make sure as hell I don't leak my identity and don't pay for anything on such unsafe sites), and that's the crux of it, the browser would know that a site is unsafe and needs total sandboxing simply because the site owner has decide to "opt out of the laws" - you realize that longer term when s settles down it's a win win situation for everyone if you just twist your mind out of the default narrative the current tech-corporate establishment is brainwashing you with...

(Or the "let's make a decentralized and truly free internet layer" into a real and usable thing... or the crypto-crimies will beat us to it and do a version that also has payments, generates obvious disasters/wars etc., and then is taken over by big gov and turned to a totalitarian nightmare with social credit tracking extra features" argument.)

Yes? ...this was the original dream of non-national cyberspace and we almost had a hope at getting it. Then the second chance with web3 but this was also spoiled by people getting too greedy and too nasty too fast.

A parallel anonymous-and-free-for-all-but-with-payments-included, smth. like Tor-but-powered-by-IPFSv9-and-Etherv7, will probably emerge in a couple decades done right after a couple failed iterations. Some techs need hardware to catch up to be cheap enough, and only after a few failed attempts they manage to grow a trend... and it will probably will last until it's used to finance a proper starting of WW3 and by then banning it will be too late.

Anyway, we'll enjoy the hell out of ourselves on the new patreons-but-for-snuff-p03n, so it will all have been worth it :)

besides karelp's sister comment, there's also the "obvious" fact that stock price is not a function of time, it's not P(t), it's a function of time and the entire f universe that also evolves through time, more like P(t, U(t, ....)) ....you can simplify things by assuming the laws of physics are deterministic and you only need one instance of the state of the universe, U, so you'd have P(t, U)

...now if you don't explicitly represent U as a parameter, you'll have it implicit in the function. So your "neural network" contains the entire state of the freakin universe (!!).

Ergo, contingent on your stance on theologic immanence vs. transcendence, what you'd call "neural network approximation of the stock's price function" is probably quite close to what other call... God (!).

(Now, if relativity as we know it is right, you might get aways with a "smaller slice of U" - lear about "light cone". And to phrase this in karelp's explanation context: you'd need to know U to know which of the practically infinitely many such neural networks to pick. The core of (artificial) intelligence is not neural networks in themselves, it's learning, the NN is a quite boring computational structure, but you can implement tractable learning strategies for it, both in code, and in living cells as evolution has shown...)

Bc there's some treaty prohibiting space-based weapons smth smth... hence your satelite will not be able to carry missiles (or use them without admitting it carried them).

...and bc ICBMs are not weapons you'd want to EVER see used :)

You'd probably use this to hit a bad guy's house/hospital/school inside airspace protected by another superpower (hence drones and other stuff won't work) based on ground based humint whose information will likely be stale after a couple hours. It could mean way less victims than conventional warfare, so ugly as it is, it's better than destroyed cities and waves of refugees.

All in all cool to see superpowers doing dick measuring contests with these kinds of stuff, compared to other horrible stuff they could be competing at militarily...

Optimal virulence is kinda bullshit with rapidly evolving things on small timescales...

Sure, if a mutation that makes it give deadly miocarditis 50% of the cases pops up, that strain would have a clear evolutionary disadvantage ...but if a strain that gives 2x worse pneumonia (and maybe a 2x death rate, that overall is still low) with 4x more coughing evolve, it will have an evolutionary advantage, more caughing => more virus in the air etc.

So you absolutely can have viruses evolving towards increased lethality, as long as people infected with the new strain spread the virus more and don't die too soon... you won't get to smth. evolving its way to 80% lethality, but it can very well evolve from <1% to ...50% (scary!).

The whole optimism about patterns of viral evolution is 100% wrong, unless you're thinking at very large timescales, and in environments where humans have not added so many accelerator factors!

...but you can find the motivation to offer a product that just works (mostly) perfectly and doesn't need support! Rarer updates, because you just need to test your things perfectly and ensure 99.9% of user will not need any "support". And shipping things that are "done" - they don't need upgrades.

If I find I actually need any kind of support with any service/product and I can't "just use it" then I start looking for an alternative product/service.

There's something rotten at the core of everything-as-a-service and continuous-improvement and growth-hacking and everything that comes with it... Most people actually like things that are done and stay done, most stuff doesn't need to need to be fixed, and it doesn't need to evolve or improve beyond the glacial pace needed to keep up working on the infrastructure it uses...

The same here :) I love to work with other software considered user hostile by others, but Gimp... WTF. It's like they took the most horrible stuff from Photohop s horrible UI and mixed it with more horrible ideas... But PS manages to be horrible and still productively usable and had all the required features, like non destructive editing smart objects etc.

Something like Affinity Photo is the other end of the spectrum, with nice and intuitive UI for almost everything... Though it stills falls short of old Corel Photopaint's nice and intuitive UIs

Doesn't it technically also contain its own address

Huh? Then you probably don't understand the meaning of "contains" here. Or what variables are in general. Variables are hard...

...god, my eyes, they hurt, that design, they're bleeding now ...you almost made me change my mind of whether this would be a good idea :)

(Hint: I'm interested in mostly using this for creating a graphically rich but minimalistic distraction-free ADHD-friendly experience ...that could also be usable in VR for even more distraction free coding - I mean since most pro devs touch type anyway, using a keyboard in VR would just work for us, without any extra stuff.)

Cut the crap, if you're app is really successful you're gonna end up re-writing the UI at least three times, trust me, and you're probably also have to maintain different multiple UIs (think Android native, iOS native, web etc.)...

No biggie if one of them is opengl based and might be expensive to add accessibility to it...

Oh, and stop spreading fud in general, you might use an accessibility-friendly toolkit and still end up with a practically unusable for visually impaired ppl UI, just as you can make a custom coded UI screen reader friendly...

Just be honest, accept that UI dev will eat up at least 50% of your resources if you wanna do it right, don't cheap out on it, embrace re-writes and maintaining multiple versions of similar functionality things, and stop being afraid of new tech...

Anyone interesting in using this to create a code-editor / IDE? I'm dying to try my hands at a next gen IDE created using a game engine :D

messing with one's brain is dangerous

Meh. I'd say we're likely stuck in a local optimum - the default programming of our brains is clearly not optimal for our state of evolution... our brains evolved for hunting and gathering clearly don't have good default programming for understanding and exploring the universe.

Hope brain-computer-interfaces come soon and we can do more controlled hacks with those, but until then anything that can nudge our minds out of equilibrium / gradient-pit is great. And some side-effects (eg. small minority of people manifesting psychoses etc.) are a sign we're on the right track imo.

Sure, we can try tweaking external factors, sprinkling in some wars, terrorism, pandemics, riots etc. to occasionally wake some people up, our benevolent true leaders, whoever they are, treat us with these at least... but I'd support more direct and less destructive alternatives :)

You're "forced" to leave in an environment with a certain structure (architecture, infrastructure) under a certain set of laws. Adding a non-damaging, mind altering temporary experience that opens people to multiple alternative thinking perspectives instead of the single one they are stuck in would be a minor addition to their already controlled and artificial environment.

Take going to primary school: sure, a minority of people are attracted on their own to rational critical learning, and would've learned on their own. But for most of us, being forced to go to school helped us immensely in our life evolution...

And going to school is a much more traumatic and permanently mind altering experience than what I suggested...

Maybe even healthy people even should be encouraged to try psychedelics or some other potent mind altering technique at least once in their life. Maybe make it as in initiation ceremony when they reach 18 or smth. Or maybe at least for the people in leadership positions when they get there

The amount of closed-mindedness, at least amongst the high-IQ and well-educated people in our society is amazing. It's sad because most truly open-minded people in our society tend to be on the lower spectrum of intelligence and accomplishment.

We need something that can increase the openness psychologic train in intelligent and accomplished people, especially the ones in leadership positions, asap, if we want to fix our societies!

EDIT+: Toned it down a bit, hope it's less flamebaiy. It's what I wanted to day but hopefully less inflaming.

I expect to be able to use it to compute intermediary results in a shell loop

You have a very peculiar use case that most other users don't! ...either you write a shell script, or a Julia script. It's preposterous to want everything to "start instantly", you'll only get stuck with the simplest most primitive tools this way. We'd all be writing C, Bash and PHP by this reasoning.

to have the nvidia card kick in triggered by the OS somehow when really needed would be the non-plus ultra, but come on, this is science fiction

Can't smth simple & obvious like the macbook pro GPUs work fine, eg. Intel graphics for everything when on battery, dedicated graphics for everything when the power cable is plugged in?

This covers like, everyones uses cases, right?! I mean, you almost never plug into an external monitor without having the power cable plugged in to... and who tf games on battery?

Unpredictable progress is lethal to businesses

At peace, or in a quasi steady state, yes. But not in all situations. Eg. in war or other adversarial situations you need to both be making progress and be as unpredictable as possible, in the hope that in some indefinite future you can exterminate and/or enslave the other players.

As the world is becoming more and more war-like, these types of strategies can become more and more advantageous. And you don't need actual military war or even physical violence. Actually it's even better without these, since non-military non-violent war-type adversarial state can be sustained forever!

In an arms race type of business situation, if your progress is predictable it means you're not moving fast enough, and somebody else will outrun you! And moving more from competing on marketshare (fighting for more from the same pie) to competing on progress would be awesome too.

I absolutely love unpredictable progress, and I'm really optimistic about the direction the world is evolving to... endless war and without (most of) the death and violence part will be a great catalyst for high-risk-high-reward technological and scientific progress! And as volatility increases maybe more and more of the businesses that depend on "the world staying stable and predictable" will be wiped out and create some breathing room and opportunity for new more flexible and open players. If predicting the future is no longer on the table, you need to invest in true agility, eg. ability to quickly change direction and speed when you glimpse a new future, maybe replace most specialists with teams of nimble quickly-retrainable AI-augmented-expert-generalists etc.

And back to the AI side... we need to stop playing the "predictions game", you never want to actually predict what will really happen in the real world, you want to predict what could have happened and then immediately interfere and change the direction of things to invalidate that prediction (sabotaging other players that probably also made the same prediction)... hopefully to produce a change in the direction you want... but if that can't work, "using AI to inject volatility and invalidate others' predictions" could be a valid business strategy too...

Not pure unpredictability in general, but unpredictability about how much and when progress will be made in a positive direction, eg. what you'd tend to get in applied AI. A few ideas:

- in a highly competitive market your actions can be unpredictable by competitors: evolution shows this can work even in the most primitive ways - it's so damn hard to swat a fly because it changes direction randomly, being smarter than it doesn't help... you could get supercharged versions of this advantage with random-AI-progress as long as you don't constrain business direction, eg. if your AI research suddenly produces breakthroughs that shows you can have an advantage on smart adult toys by applying you aerospace technology capabilities, then be willing to get in that space and play to win regardless of how much that makes sense (tip: you'll probably want to stay privately owned, markets will likely hate this "random pivoting" as it would look from outside) -- as business you'd be "the fly that no one can swat"

- use what's knows to be good at turning positive unpredictability into overall profits (markets), but internally - have multiple projects & people competing against each other inside a company, cheating antifragility / resilience, and really allow projects to fail (as in make it clear that you could be promoted even if the project/team you lead fails, so encourage the king of risk that would be too high even for a startup) etc. - you'll average out the unpredictibility and be left with the progress + antifragility -- as a business you'll be "the cockroach that survives after radiation, eg. unpredictability, has killed everything else"

Hint: all these are already happening, since before AI... and what you'll see now will be that AI/ML will bring most benefits to large corporations with multiple lines of business and multiple independent departments/subsidiaries competing agains each other, and startups-inside-corporations that until now were "pale fakes"... and probably investors already groked this too, there's a lot of growth in AI/ML applied deep inside the guts of big Cos... when this plays out to real wins, result will probably be pretty dystopic: SMBs will be wiped out, lots independent startups too probably (as a small/lone player you can't turn unpredictable progress into profits), you'll get even more centralization, and more mass-surveilance bc now it will not offer only national security advantages but also massive immediate business advantages with AI feeding on the data...

EDIT+: That's I think the problem we need to solve is how to de-centralize and spread the benefits of applying AI to business... bc it will naturally promote centralization and closed gardens, unpredictable progress is mostly toxic to each individual player alone... we need some business-version-of-democracy++, pure capitalism will result in a marriage of mega-corps + pseudo-totalitarian-govs since these will be the entities naturally thriving in the new landscape.

Unpopular opinion: AI will start being useful to business when it will start being used to re-organize and re-architect core business processes... Not as part of existing business processes, the "augmentation" will never offer too much!

It will be when AI systems will decide who to hire and who to fire and who to promote and demote, or what other companies to acquire or to merge with - profit will be increased, and almost everyone will hate it!

It will be when huge fusioned megacorps AI systems will gain monopolies and replace free markets with centralized planning systems that will actually outperform markets ("socialist planning" can't work because it can't work with humans ...bringing in "other" types of intelligences will change the game, and nobody will call it "socialism" bc it will not even try to benefit the people this time around - and there will be markets still, just likely HFT-style ones that will block direct human actors from playing in them) ...and most will hate it and likely wage war against the societies that will embrace it this way!

You'll see AI stops being useless to business, don't worry ...but it will come with many consequences and side effects, our society as it is can't handle it!

have any insight to what you can actually deliver

Maybe that's the problem. In lots of AI/ML problems you just CAN'T know ahead of time what can be deliver you need to spend the time and resources to do it and then see how well it works...

The problem imo is on the business side, most businesses don't know how to transform unpredictable progress into profit (even if average on a large timeframe that progress might be HUGE).

So ML/DS people need to overpromise in order to get anything approved, otherwise they'd just have to sit around and do nothing, and overall everyone would be worse too, bc that real but unreliable progress would never happen.

...that's mildly insulting

hardware engineer

Software's different because you can hire-fast & fire-fast. Unless you have broken processes and incompetent people surrounding the new hire, you can easily determine if they're good enough. Hack, it's even worth it to hire 2 devs for everyone you need and fire the worst performing one in a few months (flip a coin if they're pretty equal and can't afford them both).

Easier to get fired, easier to get hired. Churn and less from your employer giving a f about your career development. Every industry has its patterns.

Actually, imo the worst thing you can do as a software tech-lead is to structure your processes and projects so that hire-fast-fire-fast is no longer viable, do things so that your software is more like hardware - this is a sure way to inevitably kill the company/department you work for while "doing good work"...