Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)P
Posts
12
Comments
289
Joined
1 yr. ago

  • Yes, I get all that. What I'm saying is that you're making it pretty clear that they're getting a corrupt bargain but you're still going to make them go through all the bullshit.

    Like if you show up in Dubai and give $5 million dollars to the right person, I'm pretty sure they don't make you stand in line and pay your visa processing fee, and then say you can only stay 270 days and you have to scram or else they'll be in trouble. You just get to come hang out.

    Just either be aboveboard, and make them go through all the hassle, or have them give you 5 million dollars and then say "Hey broski, we'll take care of it." Just talk to your friends that you nominated to run the IRS and say "Hey this guy's offshore income is going to be $17 and some change, we're fine with that, right? He's a friend of mine." That kind of thing. Give the IRS a little list of the few hundred $5 million platinum card holders and make sure they have some vague understanding of what to do with the information. I don't get this weird middle-ground bullshit where they're paying the bribe, but they're still getting treated like a pleb and made to go through the bureaucracy.

    I mean honestly the way it reads to me is that they kind of want to keep an eye on you, they want to put themselves in the position of deciding whether or not you're allowed back into the country every 270+90 days. I feel like most people who are in that "not American while having to be at the mercy of US immigration" category, intersected with the "capable enough to have $5 million to throw around" category, are probably going to be able to see through that stuff. That's what I was saying, more to the point.

    It's just more of Trump's MO. He's transactional, like pathologically so to where it's all he really understands, but the other person never actually gets their end of the transaction. He just gets his and then the other person gets fucked. That really comes through to me reading this, because of how convoluted it sounds even when they're trying to make it sound like this wonderful thing.

  • For a processing fee and, after DHS vetting, a $5 million contribution, you will have the ability to spend up to 270 days in the United States without being subject to U.S. taxes on non-U.S. income.

    Fuckin'... what?

    Why do I have to pay a processing fee before giving you 5 million dollars?

    Why is it "up to 270 days"? Who is going to be swayed by this perk when they opt for the platinum card instead of the gold? What the fuck is all this? I understand selling residency, a lot of shithole countries do that, it's usually successful at what they are trying to achieve with it. Why are you immediately walking it back with all these nonsensical asterisks though? Did someone put this page together subversively, because they really want people to look at how un-benevolent the whole package is and start to think twice about who it is exactly that they're making this Faustian bargain with?

  • Initial thought: Well... but this is a transparently absurd way to set up an ML system to manage a vending machine. I mean it is a useful data point I guess, but to me it leads to the conclusion "Even though LLMs sound to humans like they know what they're doing, they does not, don't just stick the whole situation into the LLM input and expect good decisions and strategies to come out of the output, you have to embed it into a more capable and structured system for any good to come of it."

    Updated thought, after reading a little bit of the paper: Holy Christ on a pancake. Is this architecture what people have been meaning by "AI agents" this whole time I've been hearing about them? Yeah this isn't going to work. What the fuck, of course it goes insane over time. I stand corrected, I guess, this is valid research pointing out the stupidity of basically putting the LLM in the driver's seat of something even more complicated than the stuff it's already been shown to fuck up, and hoping that goes okay.

    Edit: Final thought, after reading more of the paper: Okay, now I'm back closer to the original reaction. I've done stuff like this before, this is not how you do it. Have it output JSON, have some tolerance and retries in the framework code for parsing the JSON, be more careful with the prompts to make sure that it's set up for success, definitely don't include all the damn history in the context up to the full wildly-inflated context window to send it off the rails, basically, be a lot more careful with how to set it up than this, and put a lot more limits on how much you are asking of the LLM so that it can actually succeed within the little box you've put it in. I am not at all surprised that this setup went off the rails in hilarious fashion (and it really is hilarious, you should read). Anyway that's what LLMs do. I don't know if this is because the researchers didn't know any better, or because they were deliberately setting up the framework around the LLM to produce bad results, or because this stupid approach really is the state of the art right now, but this is not how you do it. I actually am a little bit skeptical about whether you even could set up a framework for a current-generation LLM that would enable to succeed at an objective and pretty frickin' complicated task like they set it up for here, but regardless, this wasn't a fair test. If it was meant as a test of "are LLMs capable of AGI all on their own regardless of the setup like humans generally are," then congratulations, you learned the answer is no. But you could have framed it a little more directly to talk about that being the answer instead of setting up a poorly-designed agent framework to be involved in it.

  • Yeah it's a bunch of shit. I'm not an expert obviously, just talking out of my ass, but:

    1. Running inference for all the devices in the building to "our dev server" would not have maintained a usable level of response time for any of them, unless he meant to say "the dev cluster" or something and his home wifi glitched right at that moment and made it sound different
    2. LLMs don't degrade by giving wrong answers, they degrade by stopping producing tokens
    3. Meta already has shown itself to be okay with lying
    4. GUYS JUST USE FUCKING CANNED ANSWERS WITH THE RIGHT SOUNDING VOICE, THIS ISN'T ROCKET SCIENCE, THAT'S HOW YOU DO DEMOS WHEN YOUR SHIT'S NOT DONE YET
  • The balls will be fastly sucked into the machine

  • One of my first experience of the US was Detroit, Gary (the where Michael Jackson is from) and Flint.

    Out of all the possible places for a visitor from abroad to come to in America, you landed in Gary, Indiana?

    That is fucking fascinating. Are you open to tell me a little more about your time in Gary?

  • Interesting. You haven't read "more" in the singular with that meaning (definitely not in formal language, if you did see it it would be because of someone trying to be fancy but making a mistake). "Mores" is from Latin, the singular is "mos" which isn't used in English. "Mores" is a very very unusual word for a non native speaker to use, that's just what made me curious.

    For future reference I don't think I would describe almost any common person in America as "centre-right" politically right now. Almost everyone is either MAGA, or at-least-center-left (on the American version of the spectrum at least), or apolitical-or-pretending-to-be. And almost no one anywhere on the right knows what the gilded age was. IDK, maybe it's an issue of translating their politics into your terminology and then back into English.

    Also it was a little bit strange that you seemed to almost totally ignore my "my country is dying I hate this" comment and somehow take the opposite meaning from it. Your reply was kind of boilerplate, just something you could say to any American who made a reply to your comment, with a few fitting quotes from my message taken out of context up at the top. Then there are sort of weirdly formal structures to it (the bulleted list breaking down components of your argument like an essay, and "consider novel approaches" and "cultural mores" and things like that). I would say it sounds like LLM text, except that there are also in it minor grammar mistakes (which is fine honestly, I'm a native speaker and I make plenty of those.)

    I was just curious, just prodding a little bit, that is all, hope you do not take offense. Maybe you did some academic work in English, and so that's just become the way you write when you're writing English and so it's unlike a lot of Lemmy comments as a result.

  • My country is trying to die, there are monsters in the streets and it's hard for me to see how we can win the fight that is coming for us. From my side you're not going to bother me too much with any negativity you type in a Lemmy comment.

  • the hands of a citizenry that can’t be bothered to make sure it all stays on the rails

    I don’t understand how we can survive.

    Every day now I think about leaving. I want to be here but I can’t see how it will survive.

    The US is unique because it was able to constantly absorb in all this new blood from outside to wash off the stagnation, keep things solid and strong, but now that’s cut off. emphasis added

    Arguably, it is this sort of superficial, exceptionalist rhetoric is at the root cause of the situation

    If you keep parroting, “freedom this, freedom that”, your not going to be able to make a true evaluation of the price and nature of freedoms when push comes to shove.

    My brother I think you need to reread what I actually wrote.

  • Yeah. I don't disagree. It's so fucking upsetting.

    You cannot run a country when the people who run all the country machine day to day don't give a shit about education, aren't invested in maintaining what sustains them, don't really look out for each other, and don't work that hard. You just can't do it. I don't care what politics you put on top of it, what system you want to make that's going to reform Washington in whatever way. It just doesn't work, it's like building a house out of mud. The horrors we're starting to experience the early stages of right now are just the inevitable product of leaving the most powerful organized government on the planet in the hands of a citizenry that can't be bothered to make sure it all stays on the rails.

    The US is a big place, and a hell of a lot more diverse than my depressing little summary up there, and it has literally millions of people who are fighting hard to keep the ship off the rocks right now. I don't feel like the early days of the Gestapo had gangs of civilians keeping tabs on where they were going and showing up and yelling at them sometimes until they left. I feel proud as hell of the people who are trying to stop it all, and that's very much a part of the American character, somehow, even after all these years of rot. Tolkien talked about it in the English people, soft like butter sometimes but then tough as old tree-roots when they're tested. America has heart in a way that a lot of countries don't seem to have. But it just feels like the ground is melting under us. I don't understand how we can survive.

    I'm not talking about "this" being Trump, although yes absolutely that too. I'm just talking about... everything. Every empire dies, and more or less always in the same way. Success and good living, then softness, then rot, and it crumbles. The US is unique because it was able to constantly absorb in all this new blood from outside to wash off the stagnation, keep things solid and strong, but now that's cut off. I'm just really scared for my country. I fucking love this place, it's my home. Every day now I think about leaving. I want to be here but I can't see how it will survive.

    Maybe it will heal stronger after the break. It's a unique type of country, it doesn't have to follow that same decline and fall. Maybe this is what we need to break us out of half a century of lazy stagnation entitlement. I don't know. All I know is, I'm looking around and I can't see what's going to bust us out and up. I don't feel like I know my country, I don't know any other home but I don't feel like it is my people anymore.

  • Stephen Miller is clearly Himmler. They even have a certain physical weirdness in common. The Goebbels part of the operation has seen some substantial improvement; I think they have learned that it works better if you don't have one visible person who's in charge of the propaganda, but just a shadowy network that's smuggling various things that are "what everyone believes" into the discourse. I don't think there is really an equivalent of Goebbels in the modern setup.

  • I think it's bad that my first thought was to check the year, to find out what stage of the progression we're at, and how much time we still have...

    Turns out we're at the beginning of the camps opening. Sounds pretty accurate. Basically no time left.

  • It's a really good question. So democracy isn't a magic bullet. Putin gets elected every term, Hitler got elected (more or less). One element of democracy actually working the way it's supposed to is the freedom to vote, but also one element of it is subjecting the machinery that selects candidates to people's meaningful input, one element of it is a free enough media and educational system so that people will be able to put their votes in with some understanding and knowledge behind them.

    Right now, we sort of have the first, kind of, but the second and third elements the US just doesn't have. It's barely functioning. I think it's not really surprising that the results we're getting are so objectively horrifying. I just want to describe the problem in terms of how it actually developed. This whole diagnosis where "Of course the Latinos had perfect knowledge of what Trump was going to do, but they voted for him anyway, so now it's their fault that it's coming true after they voted for him" is just very obviously not true to me. Obviously they were fooled in some sense about it, because he planning to directly endanger them and their families' safety, so we need to get to the bottom of how that happened and what can be done about it in the future. I do think there is some role played by, roughly speaking, "Latino culture is macho in some ways and Trump did macho messaging that appealed to them." But saying that's the whole way it happened (as some people are apparently) is 1,000% missing the point to me.

  • Let me ask you a question: The behavior of Sinclair before this happened, when they were just buying up local TV stations and corrupting them with propaganda ("this is extremely dangerous to our democracy"), was that fine? Because they're a private company, and free speech? The government wasn't involved in that.

    Was Apple TV cancelling Jon Stewart's podcast because he criticized China fine? I don't think the government told them to do that, that was just a private business doing private business things.

    I'm not asking if those things were legal, I'm asking if you think there was nothing of concern about them.

  • If free speech applies to private businesses and they are forced by the government to host all opinions then it becomes compelled speech.

    Completely agree, that would be terrible. That's not what I am talking about.

    That is the antithesis of free speech, yet you somehow see it as, “look, Sinclair banning Kimmel is the same as Nazis being banned from Substack,” and they are actually not the same at all

    I actually went further than saying they're "not the same," I said they're not even equivalent.

    Glad to hear we agree on so many things. Including among other things the horror of the FCC going around and ordering people to remove speech on this topic. If only I'd mentioned that in some way.

  • ignoring the main point, in that the Federal Communications Commission threatened ABC’s license over this

    Search for "hand-in-glove".

    was that the types of speech that folks were advocating to have removed was speech that quite often led to real-world violence when it was able to propagate en masse.

    Okay, so reddit was right to frenetically remove everyone talking about Luigi, right? Lemmy.world too? Just bring up a connection to real-world violence (which connection is also applied to pro-Palestinian activists, BLM protestors, all sorts of people) and then it becomes okay to pull their hosting / delete their comment?

    I mean there are cases where I agree with you. Everyone can make their decision about where the lines are, that's the wonder of being a private company or whatever, and this is part of what I was quickly glossing over when I said "within certain baseline limits." Generally though, the principle is that whoever has the money and is in charge of the government is going to be the one deciding what is "violence" and what is "a counter-terrorism operation" or whatever distinction, so it's usually a lot safer to say that people can just talk even if someone who's in charge of pulling the plug or not feels like it's unsafe and dangerous what they are saying.

    THEY are typically the ones screaming the loudest about the need for some form of community based moderation and/or censorship of certain ideas.

    Citation? I'd be interested to read about it.

    (I mean certainly that's not true now. They are not screaming louder than the government is screaming about needing to fire or deplatform anyone who talked about Charlie Kirk the wrong way. I do get what you meant though.)

  • Hey so I just wanna make one point about this that a lot of people aren't going to like

    Whenever I said that Substack should be willing to host Nazi blogs, and it's kind of a shame IMO that the whole internet made them partially-stop-but-not-really, one of the things that the crowd of people that always formed to shout at me would be shouting is "YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE FIRST AMENDMENT IT'S A PRIVATE BUSINESS THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT IT'S NOT THE GOVERNMENT"

    And so what I would say is, free speech is a principle. Everyone gets to talk, no one gets shut out of the marketplace. It doesn't mean anyone has to host speech they don't want to host, but especially in our money-controls-the-means-of-informational-production society, you do have to worry in some sense about the slippery slope of deciding that some people need to be fully or mostly locked away by private business from the machinery of speaking their mind.

    It happens that the text of the first amendment applies only to the government (and, in this case, Sinclair is working so hand-in-glove with the actual fascist government that it hardly matters anyway). But it doesn't mean that the principle of free speech stops outside Washington, DC. It applies on Substack, it applies on Lemmy, it applies on cable TV, in general there's a virtue in respecting people's ability to say their stuff (within certain baseline limits) without deciding for them whether the opinion they want to say is acceptable to you.

    I don't think the situations are equivalent of course, or even close to. Substack banning Nazis might arguably be within the parameters of just safeguarding us all from the paradox of tolerance and fine. Sinclair banning Kimmel is much worse than that, and it's a quasi-governmental decision they're upholding anyway, it's not just a private business decision. The point I'm trying to make though is "it's a private business so they can censor whoever they want" isn't really the rhetorical slam-dunk that some people seem to feel like it should be, and this is a good situation to point to for why that's sometimes an important principle.

    Bring on the shouting now, I guess

  • Yes. They've always wanted to be able to tell you you're not allowed to say things they don't like, and now they think they can get away with making it happen. They can't, in the long run, but they might be able to make some people suffer in the short run before they get consigned to the historical ash-bin.

  • Sinclair also calls upon Mr. Kimmel to issue a direct apology to the Kirk family. Furthermore, we ask Mr. Kimmel to make a meaningful personal donation to the Kirk Family and Turning Point USA.

    Man go fuck yourself

    Here's the broadcast, if anyone wants to put these "inappropriate and deeply insensitive" remarks in the context of what he actually said: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j3YdxNSzTk

  • Neither of us have information because it's epistemologically impossible to tease out what really motivated voters

    100% correct yes. And yet, you have a belief in your mind that makes you convinced that:

    I genuinely believe that if trans and LGBT people did not exist, and the Catholic Church was in favor of Biden, probably 80-90 percent of Latinos would have voted Biden.

    80-90 percent? So 7% of black people voted for McCain instead of Obama, but you think only a few percent more Latinos than that might potentially have voted for Trump, if it wasn't for those pesky transgenders and if the Catholic church had come out for him?

    But your views of Latino thinking are definitely not racist lol. I mean I think I have made my point at this point, we're just reiterating at each other at this point.