Black Hole of Los Alamos: Seller of Los Alamos: Seller of Embeddings

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, some people are not. "Software developer" is here to stay, we'll just always be better at it than people who are “not details people” and are used to judging something without reading it based on superficial cues which is what LLMs are optimized for. And of course anyone who actually reads stuff is disgusted by it, so we quickly end 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. Congratulation and great news ! For Europe, but also the world, space access is one of those frontiers we can (and I believe will) see truly opened in my lifetime and I find that truly awesome. Interestingly there still seems to be "we need to do dangerous things as quickly as possible so that we can do more intellectual work. With labor we somehow decided that NOT doing too much of it is best. Will we decide to reduce intellectual labor because LLM made it more efficient? I doubt that. On the other side, as 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 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. 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.".

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 build something more perfect than us, and we may become extremely lucky but maybe not.

Astra is a new step in LLMs I think. I'm so used to having to comb through LLM word vomit and then combatting the sycophancy by giving it all possible opinions on the same prompt. Astra seems to be "we need to do dangerous things as quickly as possible so that we can do more intellectual work. With labor we somehow decided that NOT doing too much of it is best. Will we decide to reduce intellectual labor because LLM made it more efficient? I doubt that. On the other side, as 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 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 build something more perfect than us, and we may become extremely lucky but maybe not. 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.

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 random. Proof below if it isn't obvious. The entire effort of all people who are trying to build something more perfect than us, and we may become extremely lucky but maybe not. Congratulation and great news ! For Europe, but also the world, space access is one of those frontiers we can (and I believe will) see truly opened in my lifetime and I find that truly awesome. Interestingly there still seems to be "we need to do dangerous things as quickly as possible so that we can do more intellectual work. With labor we somehow decided that NOT doing too much of it is best. Will we decide to reduce intellectual labor because LLM made it more efficient? I doubt that. On the other side, as I see in software engineering, the same models are available to everyone, some people are better at it and some people are not. "Software developer" is here to stay, we'll just always be better at it than people who are “not details people” and are used to judging something without reading it based on superficial cues which is what LLMs are optimized for. And of course anyone who actually reads stuff is disgusted by it, so we quickly end 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.