Very much unlike an intern (the doing-over part).

You ignored his core point, which is that "rocks don't think" is useless for extrapolating unless you can define some procedure or model for evaluating whether X can think, a procedure that you can apply both to a rock and to a human and get the expected answers, and then apply also to ChatGPT.

Heh. It says a lot about the pace of AI research and discussion that a paper from last year is "old".

This is a common thread I notice in AI criticism, at least the criticism of the "AI isn't really thinking" or "AI can't really do much" sorts... it all references the state of the art from a year or two ago. In most fields that's entirely reasonable. I can read and reference physics or math or biology or computer science papers from last year and be pretty confident that I'm reading the current thinking. If I'm going to depend on it I should probably double-check, but that's just due diligence, I don't actually expect it to have been superseded. But in the AI field, right now, a year old is old. Three years old is ancient history, of historical interest only.

Even the criticism I see that doesn't make the mistake of looking at last year's state of the (public) art tends to make another mistake, which is to assume that you can predict what AI will be able to do a few years from now by looking at what it does now. Actually, most such criticism pretty much ignores the possibility that what AI will do in a few years will even be different from what it can do now. People seem to implicitly assume that the incredibly-rapid rate of change we've seen over the last five years will suddenly stop, right now.

For example, I recently attended the industry advisory board meeting for my local university's computer science department. The professors there, trying desperately to figure out what to teach CS students today, put together a very well thought-out plan for how to use AI as a teaching tool for freshmen, gradually ramping up to using it as a coding assistant/partner for seniors. The plan was detailed and showed great insight and a tremendous amount of thought.

I pointed out that however great a piece of work it was, it was based on the tools that exist today. If it had been presented as recently as 12 months ago, much of it wouldn't have made sense because agentic coding assistants didn't really exist in the same form and with the same capabilities as they do now. What are the odds that the tools won't change as much in the next 12 months as they have in the last 12 months? Much less the next four years, during the course of study of a newly-entering freshman.

The professors who did this work are smart, thoughtful people, of course, and they immediately agreed with my point and said that they had considered it while doing their work... but had done what they had anyway because prediction is futile and they couldn't do any better than making a plan for today, based on the tools of today, fully expecting to revise their plan or even throw it out.

What they didn't say, and I think were shying away from even thinking about, is that their whole course of study could soon become irrelevant. Or it might not. No one knows.

Only if the money slated for nuclear is diverted to sources which make sense like wind and solar, which even when paired with batteries are now cheaper than coal, let alone nuclear.

Them: Why don't you act your age?
Me: Well, I've never been this age before.

Like buying booze, renting a car, purchasing a handgun, buying a lottery ticket, getting a tatoo?

(some of these vary by state)

I don't see how you're too immature to order a Chianti with your steak dinner but you're mature enough to go $200K in debt based on a sales pitch of returns after investment.

These aren't even reasonable equivalents from a neuroscience perspective.

A read is supposed to be fine. At read time the firmware *should* rewrite the cell if the read is weak.

The firmware also *should* go out and patrol the cells when idle and it has power.

you can dd if=/dev/sdX of=/dev/null bs=2M once a year if your firmware behaves.

If your drive is offline you could
dd if=/dev/sdX of=/dev/sdX bs=2M iflag=fullblock conv=sync,noerror status=progress

to be sure, though write endurance is finite.

If you're running zfs you can 'zpool scrub poolname' to force validation of all the written data. This is most helpful when you can't trust the firmware to not be buggy crap. Which only applies to 90% of drive firmware out there.

Well 0-clicks and OTA attacks but yeah, to your point, device compromise lets you use apps on the device.

News at 11!

> I have found that streaming directly to my Plex home server over TLS is generally smoother without going through Wireguard. Not quite sure why.

I recently had to solve this.

Wireguard should work with a regular 1500byte MTU connection at 1440 or 1420 bytes (the default) --- however --- if your ISP is routing your IPv4 using 4-in-6 internally (like my major cable company) everything goes to hell.

Try dropping your wg MTU to 1360, MSS at 1320, and set up a mangle table to clamp MSS to PMTU (e.g. iptables rule).

I got a 10x bump in TLS over wireguard throughput.

Total pain in the ass and lightly documented.

I don't, and you don't understand the argument. Their business plan is simply not viable and they should fuck off and someone with a viable business plan should use the space they were wasting.

It's dangerous to go alone. Take this.

That's interesting to know. I never spent a lot of time with NeXTStep, though I have played with it a little bit. I think I have a VM for an x86 version around here somewhere, but it was a little crashy in a way that the 68k machines weren't and I don't know which piece's fault that is. I spent more time with OS X, but not a whole lot, so I didn't get that far into it.

"He developed it as thought experiment because he was dissatisfied with the existing metaphor."

No. He was thinking about it because the flaws in the Newtonian mathematics, and the ways some were trying to adapt Planck's maths into the observations, just weren't matching up. The mathematics didn't fit the observations to the degree, the level of detail, that was now feasible given the technology of observational accuracy.

So he thought about what would FIT THE OBSERVATIONS. The data came first, the explaining theory after.

The metaphor was wrong, but it wasn't some personal "dissatisfaction" - they all KNEW the theory was wrong. They all knew it. They just hadn't come up with the right one. Several, many, actually tried. They're forgotten because they were wrong. We remember generally who was right...unless there's some political/historical reason to keep mentioning (Lysenko, anyone?) why they were wrong.