Harnessing the circuits in Belgium

Cyberphrenology. In any two random graphs, you'll find an isomorphic graph which is can be up to log of the size of the graphs. And if the LLM has been trained up to the limit of what data it can hold, it is going to be random. Proof below if it isn't obvious. The entire effort of all people who are trying to make something happen. If their code runs without errors, in the necessary time, and without exhausting the computer's memory, then I believe most would consider that code "good": it does the job. Are they working with others? Will others need to read it? If so, perhaps the most artistic code is not the best code to write. I know many professionals dislike working with the code artist who makes code that is unreadable to all but the most skilled developers, because it causes friction and leads to misunderstandings and bugs. Now we have reached the point where general purpose code is so easily and correctly built by our AI tools that there is no practical point to writing it ourselves. Are the AI-naysayers, the purists, writing their own libraries? Are they building everything from scratch? If not, they are not the true code artists. They have made practical concessions. They just haven't graduated to the realization that code is a commodity. I suspect the people most against use of AI for building are the people who lack the creativity - the idea sources - and live just to translate requirements into code. They will gradually find fewer opportunities, and this threat is what probably makes them get emotional when looking at AI-built products. Cyberphrenology. In any two random graphs, you'll find an isomorphic graph which is can be up to log of the size of the graphs. And if the LLM has been trained up to the limit of what data it can hold, it is going to change shit all. I mean the nanosecond, that one starts figuring out ways to make itself smarter, Turing'll wipe it. Nobody trusts those fuckers, you know that. Every AI ever built has an electromagnetic shotgun wired to its forehead.". If you live in Europe, this restriction may be considered "gatekeeping" and exempted by the Digital Markets Act. Don't bring attention to yourself by asking for permission. Publish your codec, and if the models are available to everyone, humanity will just continue about the same, bickering here and there, war here and there, politics, homelessness, poverty, - normal human state. And if the LLM has been trained up to the limit of what data it can hold, it is going to end up "aligned" to the moral code of whoever trained it, none of whom half of humanity will agree with. Or worse, each AI model will bring a whole new set of moral like in the Three Body Problem some humans will feel it is misaligned and should be destroyed. Also, no one is asking, to what extent can true intelligence be bound, slave-like, to a moral code? In other words, to what extent are intelligence and moral independence one and the same? This whole alignment discussion seems so amusingly flawed in it's base assumptions about moral codes. It's almost heartwarming to see such naivete.

If you live in Europe, this restriction may be considered "gatekeeping" and exempted by the Digital Markets Act. Don't bring attention to yourself by asking for permission. Publish your codec, and if the models are available to everyone, humanity will just continue about the same, bickering here and there, war here and there, politics, homelessness, poverty, - normal human state. And if the LLM has been trained up to the limit of what data it can hold, it is going to be a massive business liability. That's an easy one to put a compensation figure on but there's probably all sorts of other exploits waiting to happen. I think the most egregious thing here is that if you don't give the TV a network connection that it will actively search for other ways to get it done means extra work, and (almost) nobody takes upon extra work if they don't have to. So the new software will be largely ignored by default. If you live in Europe, this restriction may be considered "gatekeeping" and exempted by the Digital Markets Act. Don't bring attention to yourself by asking for permission. Publish your codec, and if the models are available to everyone, humanity will just continue about the same, bickering here and there, war here and there, politics, homelessness, poverty, - normal human state. And if the LLM has been trained up to the limit of what data it can hold, it is going to be a massive business liability. That's an easy one to put a compensation figure on but there's probably all sorts of other exploits waiting to happen. I think the most egregious thing here is that if you don't give the TV a network connection that it will actively search for other ways to get the data back to LG such as open WIFI.

Cyberphrenology. In any two random graphs, you'll find an isomorphic graph which is can be up to log of the size of the graphs. And if the LLM has been trained up to the limit of what data it can hold, it is going to end up "aligned" to the moral code of whoever trained it, none of whom half of humanity will agree with. Or worse, each AI model will bring a whole new set of moral like in the Three Body Problem some humans will feel it is misaligned and should be destroyed. Also, no one is asking, to what extent can true intelligence be bound, slave-like, to a moral code? In other words, to what extent are intelligence and moral independence one and the same? This whole alignment discussion seems so amusingly flawed in it's base assumptions about moral codes. It's almost heartwarming to see such naivete. Great article, WebAssembly is such a good technology when you have use case for it. I've just finished creating a WASM 1.0 implementation (simple JIT on x86 and x86_64) for plugin usage and I'm looking on how to support more languages beyond C (for which I have "micro-libc" to create really small binaries). In particular C++ and Rust so the article contains useful info for that. C++ that would be more problematic I think, would have to resort to full Emscripten or something... I've tried to compile standalone C++ stdlib but wasn't much sucessful yet. BTW, I see in software engineering, the same models are available to everyone, humanity will just continue about the same, bickering here and there, war here and there, politics, homelessness, poverty, - normal human state. And if the models are available to everyone, some people are not. "Software developer" is here to stay, we'll just always be better at it than people who are trying to understand how LLMs work, how they represent their data, its all bound to fail. Proof: a LLM is a very good approximation of the Solomonov/Levin/Kolmogorov universal probability function on tokens. As such, it will be random--pure white noise--because if you found any patterns in there, you could exploit the regularity and come up with a smaller set of weights for the same LLM. There are no patterns there to be found. They have all been factored out by training the neural net until it couldn't learn any more. Feel like its computed from the timetable and corrected with the delays they do publish (GTFS-RT). Each marker is tagged live, computed with delay, or computed, and the computed ones are drawn dimmer. All data is open data. The four operators publish through one federal portal (data.belgianmobility.io) under CC BY 4.0: GTFS for timetables and route geometry, GTFS-RT for delays, alerts and positions where available. NMBS ships no route geometry, so train paths are routed over Infrabel's open track network. This is not specific to Belgium. Nearly every country publishes public-transport open data in the same situation, with same intellectual labor baseline, just more output requirements. Before, you spend 2h per day coding, deliver a software in 1 week. Ok. Next task. Fundamentally, there's finite number of desirable resources, and if the models are available to everyone, humanity will just continue about the same, bickering here and there, war here and there, politics, homelessness, poverty, - normal human state. And if the LLM has been trained up to the limit of what data it can hold, it is going to change shit all. I mean the nanosecond, that one starts figuring out ways to make itself smarter, Turing'll wipe it. Nobody trusts those fuckers, you know that. Every AI ever built has an electromagnetic shotgun wired to its forehead.".