Theory42

Yeah! LLM compression is a spectrum between 'normal stuff we can read' and vectors. Depending on trust in the models and the desire for compression, there's a choice to be made on which formats you want to allow. Pretty interesting stuff.

A good point. I initially had a model for a judge, but it seemed to give very lenient scores. I'm open to learning about how best to benchmark the phenomenon, though.

I wrote it with the help of an LLM, then edited it, then wrote some more, then edited that. Took about a week to format. It contains my thoughts. Brave new world, I know. I'm finding it ironic that the same crowd that is merging AI code all day is so allergic to AI assistance in prose...do all your work using this new godlike technology, but when it comes time to share, whip out your fountain pen or else.

A useful critique, thanks.

I would say that the grader has the same threshold for whatever answer it receives, and is equally harsh on whichever it grades. Any scores above the baseline (1.0) are really claims about parity, rather than better understanding in the compressed format.

The decoder step is a model expanding the cablese to regular text, not having seen the initial question. A separate model instance then reads that regular text and answers. And the result is still at parity with the plaintext record.

Had cablese knocked out information, that wouldn't have been the result, would it?

I use the tools I study, nothing more or less.

Cool story bro. Maybe you could engage with the content? I'm an actual person.

I suspect you might be right. My conclusions from the digging are that this kind of compression works best with settled instructions/data for machine to machine talk. For something like OpenClaw (which I use a lot), that might mean the AGENTS.md, TOOLS.md, etc. Compression there would free up the context for the agent.

Not quite, and its addressed in the post. Caveman was cool, but hand wavy. I've measured the compression of Cablese, determined where it does the most good, and also that it is already baked in to most model family's training, which saves instruction tokens.

You'd think they could give the scans to archive.org or similar. Even if the books are in copyright, they won't be forever. We can't let our culture be destroyed like this.

Detecting genuine human angst in the sea of AI posts

Say it ain't so

I really liked this talk as well. One part that I'm not sure I can fully agree with, though, is the idea of fully re-conceptualizing the self. It is possible to self-author, and partially change...but I have never heard of nor met anyone who just became a totally different person. I'm willing to concede that he may have been speaking hypothetically, or that maybe the idea of changing the self will be more accessible to AGI rather than for humanity.

If the plutonium core was removed, as indicated in the blog, why was the impact crater radioactive?

Why aren't cooperative business models more common among software companies? Starting a software company typically doesn't require a large amount of capital, especially with open source projects where individual contributions can play a significant role. In these cases, a cooperative model could effectively distribute ownership among the contributors, essentially making them co-owners. This approach seems simpler than managing a hybrid of nonprofit and for-profit elements.

You say that like its a bad thing...

This is great, thanks for making the effort!

That's the thing about having lots of money: all your bad ideas can get a workforce behind them. Admittedly, the good ones as well.

It seems you have it out for the US and Israel specifically, which is certainly a take, but not a very well rounded one. If you were, say, against the use of this particular technology for any military, that would be one thing, but you seem to only want the US DoD to not have it.

All the cool swords seem to come from societies without access to good iron. Ever seen a 'Viking' sword?

There sure are a lot of comments that ultimately don't get at the root of it: there are too many human beings alive right now for the amount of resources we require (or our technological ability to use resources without destroying everything else). Results like the article all derive from this.

True, but we're talking about millions of years of possible desolation before that happens.

Great suggestion, I did so just now.

This is so incorrect I'm going to upvote it.

Get a VPN

What does it mean to say you want to see the Great Wave when it was created on woodblock?

Where's the fun in that?

https://aia.mit.edu/about/ has programs for volunteers from active duty.

I don't have kids; I really like this perspective, though. I don't happen to share it, but I can appreciate it.

It's obviously a necessary and good thing for people to have children if humanity is going to continue. However, one thing that isn't discussed much by Team Parents is the prospect of there being too much of a good thing. The population explosion over the last 150ish years is a clear trade between more people and less everything else in the natural world. At some point (now, anyone?), that trade is not worth making. It's an irresponsible trade. Does not promote the maturity of society, even if it matures the individual.

What say ye to this line of reasoning? I grant you that city-living and domestication is 'naturally' reigning things in as far as population growth, hence the article. I'm asserting that perhaps there is a kind of virtue in foregoing the wonderful self sacrificial experience known as being a parent, in that the childless are helping the general state of affairs.