[-] vcmj@programming.dev 3 points 12 hours ago

Surprisingly just setting the systemd flag in WSL settings worked, though for a long time I simply didn't use systemd.

[-] vcmj@programming.dev 12 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I use Arch in WSL BTW. This is not a joke its actually quite nice

[-] vcmj@programming.dev 4 points 3 months ago

ICANN can pry ".local" from my cold dead hands!

[-] vcmj@programming.dev 4 points 3 months ago

Personally, if I can't go from human readable data to a complete model then I don't consider it open source. I understand these companies want to keep the magic sauce thats printing them money but all the open source marketing is inherently dishonest. They should be clear that the architecture and the product they are selling is separate, much like proprietary software just has all the open source software they used as a footnote in their about screens.

[-] vcmj@programming.dev 9 points 4 months ago

The way I understand the users didn't necessarily realize McAfee is responsible, just that a bunch of sqlite files appeared in temp so they might not connect the dots here anyway. Or even know McAfee is installed considering their shady practices.

[-] vcmj@programming.dev 5 points 7 months ago

I read this question a couple times, initially assuming bad faith, even considered ignoring it. The ability to change, would be my answer. I don't know what you actually mean.

[-] vcmj@programming.dev 6 points 7 months ago

Personally my threshold for intelligence versus consciousness is determinism(not in the physics sense... That's a whole other kettle of fish). Id consider all "thinking things" as machines, but if a machine responds to input in always the same way, then it is non-sentient, where if it incurs an irreversible change on receiving any input that can affect it's future responses, then it has potential for sentience. LLMs can do continuous learning for sure which may give the impression of sentience(whispers which we are longing to find and want to believe, as you say), but the actual machine you interact with is frozen, hence it is purely an artifact of sentience. I consider books and other works in the same category.

I'm still working on this definition, again just a personal viewpoint.

[-] vcmj@programming.dev 11 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)
[-] vcmj@programming.dev 26 points 9 months ago

"There are only two kinds of languages: the ones people complain about and the ones nobody uses" - Bjarne Stroustrup

[-] vcmj@programming.dev 6 points 1 year ago

I was a curious child, and things spiralled out of control from there...

[-] vcmj@programming.dev 7 points 1 year ago

They previously did not use APEX but that seems to have changed recently: https://github.com/GrapheneOS/grapheneos.org/commit/7bf9b2671667828d1553c92bf4f64cc749b74d0b Regardless it will need the verified boot keys it seems so Google can't update them, likely the devs will take responsibility to update the CAs. No idea if they will restore the user control though.

[-] vcmj@programming.dev 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I think the part that annoys me the most is the hype around it, just like blockchain. People who don't know any better claiming magic.

We've had a few sequence specific architectures over the years. GRU, LSTM and now Transformers. They were all better than the last at the task of sequence specific transformations, and at least for the last one the specific task was language translation. We eventually figured out these guys have a bit of clairvoyance too, they could make accurate predictions based on past data, or at least accurate enough to bet on, and you can bet traders of various stripes have already made billions off that fact. I've even seen a transformer based weather model. It did OK, but transformers are better at language.

And that's all it is! ChatGPT is a Transformer in the predictive stance. It looks at a transcript of a conversation and thinks what a human is most likely to say next. It's a very complex transformation of historical data. If you give it the exact same transcript, it gives the exact same answer. It is in the literally mathematically rigorous sense entirely incapable of an original thought. Any perceived sentience is a shadow of OpenAI's army of annotators or the corpus it was trained on, and I have a hard time assigning sentience to tomorrow's forecast, which may well have used similar technology. It's just an ultra fancy search engine index.

Anyways, that's my rant done I guess. Call it a cynical engineer's opinion. To be clear I think it's a fantastic and useful technology, and it WILL change how we interact with machines. It can do fancy things with the combination of "shell" code driving it's UI like multi-step "agents" or running code, and I actually hope OpenAI extends it far into the future, but I sincerely think any form of AGI will be something entirely different to LLMs, or at least they'll only form a small part of it as an encoder/decoder for it's thoughts.

EDIT: Added some paragraph spacing. Sorry, went into a more broad AI rant rather than staying on topic about coding specifically lol

view more: next ›

vcmj

joined 1 year ago