The part that does count is that we can verify that we does what we want it to do. We just don't know how.
Same with the black box part of AI. What the weights represent? Arcane dark magic if you ask me. What do they do? Well with LLMs we're all experiencing it.
This was my existential horror for most of my life as I almost never remembered dreaming or going to sleep - until I got a CPAP. Once I started using it, there was continuity to my life, I vividly dream and remember those dreams now. I never scored too badly on the apnea tests but just enough to qualify for one so I said what the hell and got it. Even though I don't use it regularly, something about my sleep has changed for the better.
You're correct that verification *reduces* risk. It does not eliminate risk. Humans are imperfect. That does not mean that we should stop seeking understanding on principle though, because the journey towards that understanding improves outcomes.
Recall also that LLMs are not actually entities. In their current form, there is no sentience, there is no agency. They are tools. Therefore, their output must benefit the user that requested it. Right now, that's humans (and, ideally, the planet at large; we don't exist in a vacuum) and so it makes sense that humans should verify that output and try to ensure that it aligns with their goals.
That's not to say that the output of an LLM is useless, far from it. But we should still *try* to understand its output. It gives us at least some chance to notice flaws, and an even greater chance to appreciate the implications and tradeoffs of the solution it picked.
I don't disagree with anything you said. But the thread is about... LLM outputs, even if it cures cancer and solves world hunger, it is useless (it does not count for anything) if we don't understand it.
Interesting, I really don’t see your point. It would definitely be a lot more useful if we also understand it.
But extra lives saved definitely counts for a whole lot and is definitely useful.
One comparison I see: there are so many religious people that simply wish they are saved from their cancer (or whatever else). They pray for it. They don’t care how it happens. They simply want to live longer, etc.
It’s a sketch of an argument, I hope you know what I am getting at.
We have just convinced ourselves it is statistically safe, much like most of medicine. Most drugs are not made from molecular simulation of an entire human body.
Of course we have also convinced ourselves before that cocaine in drinks, lead in petrol, asbestos in walls… were all safe…
This reminds me of the Feynman interview where the interviewer asks "how do magnets work" and he goes on this rant of how that's unanswerable and you have to decide on what is it you really want to ask. You can't expect to know the full chain of knowledge because at some point you will be asking about quarks and gluons and then hit a wall where "nobody knows". Similarly you cannot simply just give up any investigation at all because then you'll end up recommending people to put lead in their cars.
My favorite part of Feynman's magnetism rant about how the question is terrible and can't be answered is that he seemingly accidentally gives a very good explanation: that magnetic repulsion is a highly concentrated version of what repels his hand from the arm of his chair.
I find it hard to distinguish between knowing how something works, and being able to predict its behavior (including ways to create and destroy it) with probability approaching 1
I use twine for the same reason. Dirt cheap. Lasts forever. Doesn't leave residue on your cables. The downside is I end up cutting the twine when I need to use the cable but a couple inches of twine in insignificant.
The article has the author listed at the top. If you click on it, you'll see which university he works for. With his name and university, you can Google to find his wikipedia page.
You still need a firewall regardless of NAT. Otherwise, every time you take your computer outside of your home, you're no longer protected. Any attacker or compromised device on your hotel, airport, or coffee shop wifi network would have direct access to your machine.
> being able to run different applications over Tor, VPN or plain internet simultaneously, the ability to isolate non-safe binaries and being able to backup your VMs easily.
These are all possible using light containers. For example, on FreeBSD I will spin up a jail which runs wireguard, and then I'll bridge that to another a jail. That 2nd jail is running entirely off wireguard without any other way to access the network. Since it is a jail, it is isolated. And backing up is as simple as a zfs snapshot and zfs send. I assume the same is possible on Linux.
I would argue non-safe binaries are not safe in a container either. And even with full VMs, there have been an embarrassing number of escape exploits over the years.
> seeing how much of my old third-party config I can replace with builtins
There are projects that seek to do just that. I'd recommend taking a look at them to get an idea of whats possible with an almost-entirely-vanilla emacs setup.
Those are both fantastic starting points. I wanted to get even more barebones, though, just for the experience of building it up myself from scratch. The options you mention are a far more practical approach than this. I’m just not feeling entirely practical this week.
I'm sure this has already been answered somewhere in slashdot hundreds of years ago, but why not just go with "free as in freedom"? And perhaps use the word freedom insted of free when possible
But in all seriousness, "free as in freedom" seems fine to me but it is replacing the already unambiguous "free as in speech". You're still stuck with the sometimes-confusing "free as in beer" and they're still cumbersome compared to gratis/libre.
One counter-point: Humans have not figured out how general anesthesia works, but we use it every day to great effect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_of_general_anaestheti...
reply