Hey, you, who's reading this in the future: you can find out who I am today at https://rarf.zone/about/. πŸ’™


E-mail me at:
info@rarf.zone
Mastodon/Fediverse
yiff.life/@katja

0xabad1dea
@0xabad1dea

So Neuralink has an open technical challenge – which is fine – but what they want is comically absurd (1:200 lossless compression of a signal that looks like TV static, that runs very quickly, on an extremely low power chip) and they don't even promise any sort of specific reward for a working solution that only needs to break physics, disregard information theory, and summon six unicorns https://content.neuralink.com/compression-challenge/README.html



For context, I haven't had a public Twitter presence since about October, because, yeah. It's absolutely becoming worse, and holy hell, I do not want to deal with the bluechecks on there.

The sooner Bluesky gets private accounts, the sooner I'll be able to stop having a private presence there, too, I think.

(Most of the people I follow on private accounts there will never, ever use Mastodon again, and many of them just aren't interested in committing to a platform with mere tens of thousands of active users, like here.)



Y'see, the less relevant and able to get messages across to average people who aren't politics enthusiasts a social media platform is, the more progressive it is. 😌 This is why every radical organiser uses small boutique forums and would never go as low as to use Instagram, Twitter, or TikTok. πŸ˜”

(To be clear, Musk, Zuckerberg, and so many other people in leadership positions at major social media platforms should probably get tried at The Hague. I do not disagree with this. However, a lot of normative statements made about the users of platforms are inconsistent with reality.)



Osmose
@Osmose

Sorry bro I can't be amused by all those memes of Google search AI giving insane answers like Goku helping test that your chicken is at a safe temp of 100F because they're all fake and you are being tricked into thinking these systems aren't as capable as they actually are and we don't need to worry about the effect they will have on the world.

You've got to understand half of their danger is in their subtle errors, not in their obvious ones.

I really don't give a shit about your philosophical stance about how an LLM can't be creative or your misconception that they piece together chunks of the images they ingest or your "even critically engaging with LLMs is playing into their hands, if you're not ignoring them you're complicit" venting disguised as rhetoric.

Anthropic is already getting results isolating concepts as features in their models and tweaking them to intentionally change the behavior much more reliably than just by prompting. Imagine an LLM that can literally have the concept of LGBT people disabled so that it doesn't consider them when generating responses, in a way that may not be detectable from the prompt.

I want to stay up to date on their capabilities so that when I have professional opportunities to organize against them I can do so. I don't think we can afford to ignore them, but the opposite of ignoring them is not necessarily embracing them.


Β