In many cases that kind of answer is correct though. People ask for things that aren’t a good idea on a regular basis. Sometimes what they want is correct for their circumstances, but often not.

There is a manual pre-installed on your machine for most commands available. You just type man and the name of the thing you want the manual for. Many commands also have a --help option that will give you a list of basic options.

I should point out this isn’t Linux specific either. Many of these commands come from Unix or from other systems entirely. macOS has a similar command line system actually. It’s more that Linux users tend to use and recommend the command line more. Normally because it’s the way of doing things that works across the largest number of distributions and setups, but also because lots of technical users prefer command line anyway. Hence why people complain about Windows command lines being annoying. I say command lines because they actually have two of them for some odd reason. Anyway I hope this helped explain why things are the way they are.

Honestly your asking the wrong person here. I would suggest maybe starting with Krapotkin or Bakunin who were some of the early anarchists. That or just looking up anarchist philosophy and history. Anarchists have a history fighting against both fascism and some marxist tendencies like the Bolsheviks.

They definitely do have positions and beliefs. I am not sure how much you actually understand anarchism. Anarchist “nations” have even been established before, but they tend to get invaded sooner or later. While they do sometimes ally with Marxists you would be correct in thinking they have few permanent allies. Hence the getting invaded part I guess.

I think we all like law and order

Have you never met any anarchists?

I’ve tried making this argument before and people never seem to agree. I think Google claims their Kubernetes is actually more secure than traditional VMs, but how true that really is I have no idea. Unfortunately though there are already things we depend upon for security that are probably less secure than most container platforms, like ordinary unix permissions or technologies like AppArmour and SELinux.

Did back propagation even exist in the 60s? That was a pretty fundamental change in what they do.

If we are arguing about really fundamental changes then arguably any neural network is the same and humans are the same as ChatGPT or a mouse, or even something simpler like a single layer perceptron.

I know, I have used them. It’s actually my job to do research with those kinds of models. They aren’t nearly as powerful as current OpenAI’s GPT-4o or their latest models.

I think he’s talking about people using LLMs for illegal and unethical activities such as fishing. There are already a lot of people using LLMs that are open source without ethics restrictions to do bad stuff, with the power of GPT4 behind them they would be a lot more effective.

That’s not true though. The models themselves are hella intensive to train. We already have open source programs to run LLMs at home, but they are limited to smaller open-weights models. Having a full ChatGPT model that can be run by any service provider or home server enthusiast would be a boon. It would certainly make my research more effective.

There is a lot that can be discussed in a philosophical debate. However, any 8 years old would be able to count how many letters are in a word. LLMs can’t reliably do that by virtue of how they work. This suggests me that it’s not just a model/training difference. Also evolution over million of years improved the “hardware” and the genetic material. Neither of this is compares to computing power or amount of data which is used to train LLMs.

Actually humans have more computing power than is required to run an LLM. You have this backwards. LLMs are comparably a lot more efficient given how little computing power they need to run by comparison. Human brains as a piece of hardware are insanely high performance and energy efficient. I mean they include their own internal combustion engines and maintenance and security crew for fuck’s sake. Give me a human built computer that has that.

Anyway, time will tell. Personally I think it’s possible to reach a general AI eventually, I simply don’t think the LLMs approach is the one leading there.

I agree here. I do think though that LLMs are closer than you think. They do in fact have both attention and working memory, which is a large step forward. The fact they can only process one medium (only text) is a serious limitation though. Presumably a general purpose AI would ideally have the ability to process visual input, auditory input, text, and some other stuff like various sensor types. There are other model types though, some of which take in multi-modal input to make decisions like a self-driving car.

I think a lot of people romanticize what humans are capable of while dismissing what machines can do. Especially with the processing power and efficiency limitations that come with the simple silicon based processors that current machines are made from.

No actually it has changed pretty fundamentally. These aren’t simply a bunch of FCNs put together. Look up what a transformer is, that was one of the major breakthroughs that made modern LLMs possible.

ChatGPT 4o isn’t even the most advanced model, yet I have seen it do things you say it can’t. Maybe work on your prompting.

Exactly this. Things have already changed and are changing as more and more people learn how and where to use these technologies. I have seen even teachers use this stuff who have limited grasp of technology in general.

FreeTube breaks regularly and doesn’t have support for higher resolutions.

Can you link a source that isn’t pay walled?

Believe it or not you can turn a reactor off if necessary, or up and down. Crazy I know.

Biomass isn’t practical as it releases far too much emissions to be worth it, you almost might as well use gas. Actually thinking about how much land use it would take, it might actually be worse than gas overall. Biomass is only really sensible when talking about material we would waste anyway like food waste and other waste that can be burned, but that would barely make a dent in our energy needs.

Not everything is about economics, otherwise we probably wouldn’t be talking about renewables at all.

As for “free energy”, no energy is free. Solar panels and wind turbines still have a finite life span. Nuclear fuel is cheap enough to the point where it too might as well be free if we are willing to call wind turbines free. This is especially true for Thorium technology or actinide burners. Actinide burners literally reuse nuclear waste.

Not really, no.

Have you actually looked at the data? You might be surprised.

As opposed to the ever so clean extraction and storage of nuclear fuel? Come on.

Yes actually. Uranium mining isn’t nearly as bad as needing tons of lithium, cobalt, and who knows what that goes into solar panels. Thorium containing materials are literally a byproduct of other mining operations that gets thrown away.

From what I gather, wind is on par with nuclear. Other renewables have slightly more than either wind or nuclear, but compared to the other nonrenewable alternatives either option is far better.

Nope. Wind generates 11 tons of CO2 where Nuclear only makes 6. Solar isn’t even close. Biomass is the worst of the renewables and is closer to fossil fuels in its pollution levels than the other clean sources of energy.

https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

And all of this leaves out the most important aspect - nuclear is incredibly expensive compared to renewables, and is trending more expensive each year, while renewables are trending in the opposite direction. This means that for the same amount of resources, we will be able to displace more nonrenewables, leading to a net reduction in deaths/emissions pursuing this route as opposed to nuclear.

Is it? Most people aren’t factoring the cost of energy storage. No one is suggesting Nuclear as the only source of energy. It is very helpful though for grid firming and reducing the amount of expensive and environmentally destructive energy storage therefore reducing the overall cost of operating the grid while increasing reliability and reducing land usage and environmental damage.

It’s also cheaper than solar in many cases. While the upfront investment in reactors is large, the cost per energy produced and ongoing costs are quite low. Lower in many cases than fossil fuels like gas. Plus reactors last longer than solar panels and wind turbines.

Of course, I have nothing against fully privately funded nuclear. If private actors can make the economics work under safe conditions, then nuclear construction is an obvious net positive. When they displace public investment in renewables, however, then they are a net negative.

What happened to the idea that renewables didn’t need public funding anymore? If it’s really so cheap as you say that wouldn’t be necessary.

The reality is both renewables and nuclear needed huge state investments to get off the ground.

That’s a lie. Renewables produce more CO2 than Nuclear reactors per unit energy produces. They can also be significantly more dangerous (higher number of deaths per unit energy) in the case of hydro power or biomass. Solar and batteries require various rare materials and produce significant pollution when manufactured and must be replaced every 20 or 30 years.

AGI and ASI are what I am referring to. Of course we don’t actually have that right now, I never claimed we did.

It is hilarious and insulting you trying to “erm actually” me when I literally work in this field doing research on uses of current gen ML/AI models. Go fuck yourself.