Does a literal book nerd profit megacorporations when they bring up books to you? While burning through a household worth of energy in the process?
Also, I’d like to talk with such book nerd because they’d have opinions on books, potentially if I brought up something I have read we could exchange thoughts about it, they could make recommendations for me based on their complex experiences instead of statistics from Reddit comments. An LLM can do none of those, while also doing the former. It’s a lose-lose.
Also, a book nerd doesn’t take roughly ~all human created text to train to produce meaningful results. It’s just such a misplaced analogy and people have been making it ever since OpenAI announced chatgpt for the first time - why do people think “an LLM is just a human who read a lot”
> Megacorporations making profit is not some evil that needs to be stopped.
Externalities are a thing. It's not about the profit per se, but about how (a) the making of that profit might negatively impact others, and (b) the deployment of that profit in pursuit of rent-seeking and other antisocial behavior in order to insure its continued existence might also negatively impact others.
But this thread is discussing the technical solution and how many jurisdictions are pretending there’s no technical solutions just so they can pass surveillance legislation?
In my eyes they are not fair, because while they tax consumption, they very disproportionately affect buying power the less wealth you have. For a millionaire, paying let’s say 30% more for new shoes is not going to meaningfully change how much money they’re left with. If I’m poor and I need new shoes (because you can’t just afford a new shoes when you want them so it by necessity implies you’re in desperate need of them), that extra 30% means one less grocery trip. Or heck, even 30% on groceries potentially means one less grocery trip.
Which is to say, being poor is expensive, and sales tax only makes it more expensive, while literally not affecting the bottom line of those in higher income brackets.
But wealthier people tend to consume more. The top 10% of earners account for~50% of consumer spending. It's more like the low income person pays $5 of sales tax on a $50 pair of shoes, and a high income person pays $50 of sales tax on a $500 pair of shoes.
Haven't you read Capital? Marx's core premise which nobody actually working in economics denies is that the nature of wealth is to consolidate in the hands of the few. So while wealthier people may consume more, that does not factor into "fairness" because they are hoarding their wealth, amassing power over others, and using it disproportionately to maximize their pleasure, power, influence, etc at the cost of the suffering of others.
But I take it from your glib comment you'll disagree or deny that.
LOL. Do you actually think that person has read Capital or much of anything economics related? These types of internet arguments don't happen among equally equipped participants. People can just say random shit on the internet it turns out. They do it all the time.
At what point to we have to stop playing pretend with people who never participate in good faith? I get the argument that there are ignorant observers who might learn something. But I've not actually seen any sort of data to support anything like that.
For me it was just about calling out bullshit premises where I see them. I don't mind taking 10 seconds to do it every single time.
Maybe my methods were too subtle here, but the point was simply to illustrate that the OP's comment had no connection to reality, with receipts (citing sources)
This is not exactly correct. They wouldn’t need to emulate SPTM, since SPTM is already running. And to be very correct, SPTM is a “process” running in a separate privilege level to the regular privilege levels found on arm processors.
The reason it’s a pain is because pre M4 the bootloader gave you complete control over the CPU, including the Apple-exclusive extensions like GLx, the special privilege levels e.g. SPTM is running at. Since M4 the bootloader handles that, so asahi team has to either cope with being dropped after GL is already initialized and locked down, or running in a mode with all of Apple extensions disabled.
So it’s not a problem for running Linux, but it’s a problem for running macOS with a thin abstraction layer to intercept talking with devices like the GPU, which made reverse engineering for them significantly easier.
Afaik this isn’t quite correct either. From what I could gather from the CCC talk and forum posts:
The Apple specific instructions to talk to the SPTM are only usable in the GL2 privilege level, not EL2 where you end up after booting non-Apple code.
The problem is the macOS kernel uses these custom instructions to manage its own page table mappings, and when being virtualized in EL2 it just crashes since these instructions are now invalid.
The solution is indeed to emulate the SPTM interface and instructions just enough for macOS to not crash, that way it can be virtualized for reverse engineering. The emulated SPTM could just pass through the mappings, ignoring all of the security checks the real one would normally do.
I was able to find quite a bit of existing SPTM analysis online (I believe from iOS security research) so this issue isn’t insurmountable by any means.
From our knowing how it works [0] it’s just a mechanism for the kernel to give up some privileges and add extra security checks when modifying page tables. Sounds easy to emulate to me: just don’t do the checks and modify the page tables directly. Do you have some reason to believe it can’t be emulated?
If for some reason it’s difficult, the relevant kernel code could also be hooked or patched.
It’s very neat but I’m sorry, you can’t advertise yourself as a designer while prominently showcasing very obviously AI-generated graphics. The wallpaper and the avatar immediately undermine everything else, I can’t take you seriously seeing those
So you can’t take me seriously based on the use of a tool that almost definitely is used on a daily basis by everyone in my industry? Or would I be taken more seriously if I took a moral stand like you, and failed to adapt to my changing profession?
I would generally file questioning and criticism under “neutral”, in some very specific cases “positive” or “negative”. Are you interpreting “negative” as “anything not strictly positive”?
> Questions can be neutral but questioning is probably negative
The ethos of HN is to err on the side of assuming good faith and the strongest possible interpretation of other's positions, and to bring curiosity first and foremost. Curiosity often leads to questions.
Can you clarify what you mean by distinguishing between "questions" and "questioning"? How or why is one neutral while the other is probably negative?
I'll also point out that I'm questioning you here, not out of negativity, but because it's a critical aspect of communication.
> In what world does "criticism" not default to "negative"?
Criticism is what we each make of it. If you frame it as a negative thing, you'll probably find negativity. If you frame it as an opportunity to learn/expand on a critical dialogue, good things can come from it.
While I understand what you're getting at and get that some people are overly critical in a "default to negative" way, I've come to deeply appreciate constructive, thoughtful criticism from people I respect, and in those context, I don't think summing it up as "negative" really captures what's happening.
If you're building a product, getting friendly and familiar with (healthy) criticism is critical, and when applied correctly will make the product much better.
Regarding your distinction, I'm still confused. In a very literal sense, what is the difference between "questions" and "questioning" in your mind? i.e. what are some examples of how they manifest differently in a real world conversation?
It's just a subtle difference in implication that depends on exact wording. Don't read too much into what I'm saying there.
It's hard to argue that asking questions isn't neutral, but being questioning implies doubt and it says so in the dictionary to back me up, it's not really more complex than that.
Frankly I think all that wishy washy "ethos of HN" crap is the problem. Leads to nothing but boring, pointless, fawning comment (and hyper passive aggressive copy pasting of the "rules" from a few of the usual suspects).
Constructive criticism and healthy debate is entirely possible without violating the guidelines, and happens quite a bit.
If people can’t figure out how to have conversations that aren’t “boring, pointless, fawning” while honoring the community guidelines, they:
1. Need to try harder
2. Or they should probably not be commenting here
The rules/ethos are not perfect, nor does the community always succeed in its goals. But I’ll take the dynamic here every day vs. sliding into the kind of toxic sludge fest that has infiltrated just about every social network.
This place is barely holding the hordes at bay as it is. I’m grateful for the guidelines and the collective will to abide by them as much as possible.
I’m talking about in place of a fetch call, you could simply import a json response from an endpoint, there by bypassing the need to call fetch, and you’ll get the response as if it’s imported.
It won’t replace all GET calls certainly but I can think of quite a few first load ones that can simply be import statements once this happens
Yes, it uses QEMU under the hood for VMs and runs LXC containers. But also, since recently, you can run docker images in it. Very handy, especially since it has 1st class remote support, meaning you can install only the incus client and when doing `incus launch` or whatever, it will transparently start the container/vm on your remote host
Why haven’t you threatened to sue yet? They very clearly violated the MIT license by getting rid of your copyright, which is literally the only requirement MIT imposes. Go after them, don’t let the corporation get away with
Also, a book nerd doesn’t take roughly ~all human created text to train to produce meaningful results. It’s just such a misplaced analogy and people have been making it ever since OpenAI announced chatgpt for the first time - why do people think “an LLM is just a human who read a lot”
reply