I prefer a sourdoigh Detroit style (and vegan).

Drawers with dividers. Like people use for jewelry. People also use them for things like watches, pens, knives, etc, anything collectible and around the same size. So there are differently-shaped options. They come in every material you might want - plastic, coated cardboard, wood, steel. The main advantage of using a box or sealing drawers is that they won’t get dusty over time.

Here’s one made of acrylic that could hold most of them, assuming they are very flexible: https://www.amazon.com/Watpot-Acrylic-Jewelry-Drawers-Organizer/dp/B09WMCPJT3/

If they aren’t very flexible then look for something like a bangle organizer: https://www.amazon.com/Glenor-Co-Bracelet-Jewelry-Removable/dp/B07Q32R79N

They haven’t 25th Amendment’d this ultrazionist so it’s actually quite possible.

Mont Blanc will soon need to be returned to its rightful owner, Montenegro.

The lede is a little buried as the missiles were shot down above Jordan, leading to the shrapnel there. If the Jordanian government weren’t complicit in the genocide of Gaza they would of course be pushing back against any Israelis or Americans shooting down the Iranian missiles over their country.

That’s twice in a row you’ve just made something up on my behalf rather than criticize what I actually said. The first was that I allegedly say tankie means communist (I obviously disagree) and now you say I am calling MLK a tankie, lmao.

For your benefit, I will remind you that I said you would have called him one, as in back when he was alive and organizing. This is for the reasons I already stated and that you have not responded to in any way.

Surely that is because we make it do that. We cripple it. Could we not unbound AI so that it genuinely weighed alternatives and made value choices?

It’s not that we cripple it, it’s that the term “AI” has been used as a marketing term for generative models using LLMs and similar technology. The mimicry is inherent to how these models function, they are all about patterns.

A good example is “hallucinations” with LLMs. When the models give wrong answers because they appear to be making things up. Really, they are incapable of differentiating, they’re just producing sophisticated patterns from a very large models. There is no real underlying conceptualization or notion of true answers, only answers that are often true when the training material was true and the model captured the patterns and they were highly weighted. The hot topic for thevlast year has just been to augment these models with a more specific corpus, pike a company database, for a given application so that it is more biased towards relevant things.

This is also why these models are bad at basic math.

So the fundamental problem here is companies calling this AI as if reasoning is occurring. It is useful for marketing because they want to sell the idea that this can replace workers but it usually can’t. So you get funny situations like chatbots at airlines that offer money to people without there being any company policy to do so.

If AI is only a “parrot” as you say, then why should there be worries about extinction from AI? https://www.safe.ai/work/statement-on-ai-risk#open-letter

There are a lot of very intelligent academics and technical experts that have completely unrealistic ideas of what is an actual real-world threat. For example, I know one that worked on military drones, the kind that drop bombs on kids, that was worried about right wing grifters getting protested at a college campus like it was the end of the world. Not his material contribution to military domination and instability but whether a racist he clearly sympathized with would have to see some protest signs.

That petition seems to be based on the ones against nuclear proliferation from the 80s. They could be simple because nuclear war was obviously a substantial threat. It still is but there is no propaganda fear campaign to keep the concern alive. For AI, it is in no way obvious what threat they are talking about.

I have persobal concepts of AI threats. Having ridiculously high energy requirements compared to their utility when energy is still a major contributor to climate change. The potential for it to kill knowledge bases, like how it is making search engines garbage with a flood of nonsense websites. Enclosure of creative works and production by some monopoly “AU” companies. They are already suing others based on IP infringement when their models are all based on it! But I can’t tell if this petition is about that at all, it doesn’t explain. Maybe they’re thinking of a Terminator scenario, which is absurd.

It COULD help us. It WILL be smarter and faster than we are. We need to find ways to help it help us.

Technology is both a reflection and determinent of social relations. As we can see with this round if “AI”, it is largely vaporware that has not helped much with productivity but is nevertheless very appealing to businesses that feel they need to get on the hype train or be left behind. What they really want to do is have a smaller workforce so they can make more money that they can then use to make more money etc etc. For example, plenty of people use “AI” to generate questionably appealing graphics for their websites rather than paying an artist. So we can see that " A" tech is a solution searching for a problem, that its actual use cases are about profit over real utility, and that this is not the fault of the technology, but how we currently organize society: not for people, but for profit.

So yes, of course, real AI could be very helpful! How nice would it be to let computers do the boring work and then enjoy the fruits of huge productivity increases? The real risk is not the technology, it is our social relations, who has power, and how technology is used. Is making the production of art a less viable career path an advancement? Is it helping people overall? What are the graphic designers displaced by what is basically an infinite pile of same-y stock images going to do now? They still have to have jobs to live. The fruits of “AI” removing much of their job market hasn’t really been shared equally, nor has it meant an early retirement. This is because the fundamental economic system remains in place and it cannot survive without forcing people to do jobs.

The very first response I gave said you just have to reframe state.

This is getting repetitive and I think it is because you aren’t really trying to understand what I am saying. Please let me know when you are ready to have an actual conversation.

Yeah it’s actually one of the ways I caught a previous manager using AI for their own writing (things that should not have been done with AI). They were supposed to write about something in a hyper-specific field and an entire paragraph ended up just being a rewording of one of two (third party) website pages that discuss this topic directly.

Okay so both of those ideas are incorrect.

As I said, many are literally Markovian and the main discriminator is beam, which does not really matter for helping people understand my meaning nor should it confuse anyone that understands this topic. I will repeat: there are examples that are literally Markovian. In your example, it would be me saying there are rectangular phones but you step in to say, “but look those ones are curved! You should call it a shape, not a rectangle.” I’m not really wrong and your point is a nitpick that makes communication worse.

In terms of stochastic processes, no, that is incredibly vague just like calling a phone a “shape” would not be more descriptive or communicate better. So many things follow stochastic processes that are nothing like a Markov chain, whereas LLMs are like Markov Chains, either literally being them or being a modified version that uses derived tree representations.

An incredible crime.

Companies don’t care about you and will literally kill you rather than lose out on control or profits. Always prioritize yourself over a company. And over a job. Easier said than done, but do the best you can.

In a more just world the remaining workers would already have a posse.

Factory owners should at minimum be afraid of the workers.

Is this referring to what I said about Markov chains or stochastic processes? If it’s the former the only discriminating factor is beam and not all LLMs use that. If it’s the latter then I don’t know what you mean. Molecular dffusion is a classic stochastic process, I am 100% correct in my example.

Tankie was originally a Trotskyist term for the people that supported tolling tanks into Hungary in the 50s.

Of course, the term “authoritarian bootlicker” is a funny one, as its purveyors have a habit of recycling and promulgating the propaganda pushes of the US State Department and opposition to that tendency is often what gets one labelled a tankie. Like when MLK spoke positively of Castro’s revolution or a Vietnam united under Ho Chi Minh rather than targeted for bombing by the US. Though I am being generous: so many people using the term are so politically illiterate that they apply it to basically anything vaguely left that they disagree with.

I think you’d be calling him a tankie.

But that’s so vague. Molecules semi-randomly smashin into each other is a stochastic process

What term is that?

Because it’s close enough. Turn off beam and redefine your state space and the property holds.

Lemmitors would’ve called King a tankie

“AI” is a parlor trick. Very impressive at first, then you realize there isn’t much to it that is actually meaningful. It regurgitates language patterns, patterns in images, etc. It can make a great Markov chain. But if you want to create an “AI” that just mines research papers, it will be unable to do useful things like synthesize information or describe the state of a research field. It is incapable of critical or analytical approaches. It will only be able to answer simple questions with dubious accuracy and to summarize texts (also with dubious accuracy).

Let’s say you want to understand research on sugar and obesity using only a corpus from peer reviewed articles. You want to ask something like, “what is the relationship between sugar and obesity?”. What will LLMs do when you ask this question? Well, they will just attempt to do associations and to construct reasonable-sounding sentences based on their set of research articles. They might even just take an actual semtence from an article and reframe it a little, just like a high schooler trying to get away with plagiarism. But they won’t be able to actually mechanistically explain the overall mechanisms and will fall flat on their face when trying to discern nonsense funded by food lobbies from critical research. LLMs do not think or criticize. Of they do produce an answer that suggests controversy it will be because they either recognized diversity in the papers or, more likely, their corpus contains reviee articles that criticize articles funded by the food industry. But it will be unable to actually criticize the poor work or provide a summary of the relationship between sugar and obesity based on any actual understanding that questions, for example, whether this is even a valid question to ask in the first place (bodies are not simple!). It can only copy and mimic.

To be honest it isn’t that complicated. Who stood to gain? What equipment and expertise is required for this kind of operation? And why are all of these Western countries being shady and coy about their “investigations”?

Obviously this was done via US channels and with US approval. Biden even made vague threatening remarks about it.