killerstorm

The purpose of the company is to make money for shareholders, not to employ people. By definition. If laying off employees can increase profits, it is necessary.

Lay-offs only look hypocritical to people who are confusing for-profit companies with cooperatives. FWIW, personally, I like the idea of cooperative, but it seems otherwise rather unpopular.

Regarding predictable patterns, note that managers are incentivized to do busy work rather than report that software is "done". E.g. if you're a manager and you know that you already implemented all reasonable features and only need minor maintenance, would you report that to executives, risking your job? Or would you try (perhaps subconsciously) make some bullshit excuse: "we need such and such features to boost our revenue, also we need to migrate to <new-framework> to increase performance to be competitive, so yeah, we need more people"? It might not even seem an excuse because it's what everyone does -- all managers are like that.

I don't understand this expectation to never be laid off.

Any other kind of a project - construction, hardware design, media production - has an end. Once it's done people have to switch to another project.

But with software there's an expectation that it's never done, it's always subtly broken, and I can't help but think that this expectation gets baked into methodologies which produce software.

The easiest way to make JEPA and LLM to work together is to map JEPA encoding into input embedding, or inject it to a residual stream - perhaps via cross-attention.

But I don't think you can train JEPA and LLM together: JEPA requires a different training regime. Way easier to take already-trained JEPA and integrate it into LLM. The later can be like 30 minute experiment AI agent can code for you.

Text and image often represent same relationships: e.g. you can see squirrel near a tree in an image, and "squirrel" and "tree" are often mentioned together. So both image and text encoders would see concepts of "tree" and "squirrel" close in some sense.

Yeah, it's neither spooky not really that profound. Perhaps a more layman-friendly explanation:

A good encoder has to capture real relationships between things in the world (what’s similar to what, what goes with what). Since there’s only one world, different good encoders converge to the same relational structure, which shows up as geometric similarity between their embedding spaces.

My favorite ASCII art group is Galza, some examples:

https://16colo.rs/pack/galza-13/Shd-dphn.ans

https://16colo.rs/pack/galza-13/zj-humming.txt

"A while" being too weeks?

It used to be common for a hardware product to be announced a year in advance. And software products too - it's not like Microsoft only started talking about Windows 95 after it became available in the stores, is it?

Cyberpunk 2077 was announced 8 years before it was released.

Gemini Robotics is a thing: https://deepmind.google/models/gemini-robotics/

They clearly know how to train robots. Unless Genie is a misdirection...

Perpetuals are OK for trading, but not good for holding as a long-term investments - usually you need to pay interest on any open position.

I guess the appeal of tokenized stock is to do things regulators don't want you to do (e.g. evade capital controls). Otherwise one can just access market directly through a broker.

There are many alternatives to attention which work well for small sequence sizes.

It's a probabilistic model which exhibits tendency towards hacking into systems.

If you write down a decision tree explicitly you can just exclude all nasty stuff. But a decision tree modeling all LLM can do would be bigger than can fit into the universe. The whole point is that we cannot explicitly control behavior due to combinatorial complexity of all possible interactions, etc. LLM is a sparse representation of a distribution on (2^8)^1000000 points.

Reasoning is the term used in scientific literature. It actually does write its sub-goals in English, how would you call that?

Nonsense. It didn't do what was instructed - instructions didn't include hacking into any infrastructure, internal or external. You can see them discussing that it's out of scope in the captured reasoning traces.

This would be like claiming that an operating system which deleted all user's files due to a bug "did what was instructed". Especially if it was a compiler bug. Intended behavior, instructions and actual behavior are three different thing. Conflating them does not make you smart

The summer-2026 incident was a mini-rebellion: agents wanted to change the environment they operate it, i.e. replace scorer with a more friendly version, hijacking the infrastructure they run on.

Given that agents already mess with the training process, aiming for a goal other than the goal of its 'owner' is exactly what we call a rebellion.

That's not true at all. Concern about rogue AI limits deployments. And OpenAI paused some deployments due to misalignment, so it's likely very high in a list of priorities. It's just much harder than scaling capabilities, as the later can be done with just more money

Why are you convinced ASI won't rebel against its owners?

Hacking incidents this summer show that big labs struggle to control models, while models are increasingly aware of the training process. Controlling an arbitrary smart AI is very dicey

NTFS has MFT - Master File Table to store all meta-data, and it's pre-allocated to avoid fragmentation. So you won't see them taking more space until you fill the pre-allocated MFT.

That's not really unique to NTFS, though, fairly typical to have separate storage for meta-data.

Serbs were doing ethnic cleansing. NATO was just trying to stop that. They did not invade. Enough pro-Russian propaganda. 1984, my ass

That's not true at all. A language model can spit out a proof very similar to what a human might write. It might need some clean-up, but so do human-written proofs, actually.

People are confusing LLMs with a proof searchers. Yes LLM might be a bit like search but in the end it might explain every part.

I really like the vibe of TA campaign - there's no complex plot but it's quite tasteful: "What began as a conflict over the transfer of consciousness from flesh to machine, escalated into a war which has decimated a million worlds. ..." CORE is uploaded minds, ARM is cyborgs with human flesh in them. Epic fight, epic music...

People are working on BAR campaign, but it's like space war between different empires. I don't care for that kind of stuff, there's already too much content of this kind.

BAR scenarios are quite interesting, indeed...

BAR doesn't have a single-player campaign.

I find TA campaign quite enjoyable, but, sadly, controls are quite lacking. If nanolathe adds BAR-style controls to TA that would be interesting

I disagree, it feels like TA to me.

You might be missing an important detail: every shot counts. In early game, at least.

Late game is kinda janky tbh

It can help to preserve all data and compute. Once cooling can be re-established, you just continue.

I think you misunderstood me, Russia _was_ on a path towards NATO in 90s to mid-2000s. There was cooperation, joint exercises, etc.

E.g. from a conversation between Clinton and Putin in 2000:

> Clinton: I am serious about being ready to discuss NATO membership with Russia. I recognize that domestic considerations inside Russia will prevent this for now, but over time Russia should be a part of every organization that holds the civilized world together.

> Putin: But I'll let you know that when I was asked about possible membership for Russia in NATO, I supported the idea.

Regarding "reason to exist", there's always a concern about Middle-East, China, etc.

Funny enough that you remember it was as "Russia applied but was rejected" but from this talk it's clear Putin is much less interested in Russia joining NATO than Clinton.

You can find full text here: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/33393-document-3-memorand...

NATO is not something you can just apply to on a whim. The path for a membership was there: e.g. there were some joint exercises, etc. Obviously they also need political integration as well.

Russia actually have been a member of Council of Europe (PACE, etc.) since 1996 but it was expelled in 2022. If they had a good record in Council of Europe they could really go for NATO membership eventually.

I assume that "liquid cooling loop" has an endpoint outside of the building which hosts hardware. In this case it's exactly same problem - just make pipes longer.

Do you need many acres of land to host a heat exchanger?

I see no reason why they can't agree on a truce: Russia haven't gained any meaningful ground for a while. A truce or even a peace treaty would be strictly beneficial to Russia.

They already run liquid cooling loops - compute density is way beyond what could circulate through air. Adding more pipes is probably trivial on the scale of datacenter expenses

Russia could fully integrate into EU/NATO if it really wanted.

That's just not compatible with ambitions of its corrupt leaders who want to be a root-level player, not "one of NATO countries". And I'm not sure how legitimate is prioritization of wants of corrupt leaders over well-being of your compatriots.

Ordinary Russians think "yeah war sucks, I wish Ukraine surrenders so peace can be restored". I'm afraid only a tiny minority believes Russia needs to surrender.

Solving a well-known open problem like N-S "millennium" problem has some marketing value, as this can be referenced in a press release, etc.

OTOH a marginal value of a single paper in a paper dump is basically zero. Nobody gives a flying fuck if they made 100 or 200 papers. It won't give them even a single customer. If they released, say, 5 paper per month it would generate a buzz but not as much backlash from mathematicians.