"Dude", you really need to work on your AI-dar if you think that's AI. Try pasting that into Pangram. I'll wait.

, they'll push it to the intended market (marketing)

Dunno, I have a webstore, and I wouldn't touch anything like this with a 100-meter pole ;) I actually have a support page linked up to Gemini, as a text chat, but I would never subject my customers to such a headache.

1) We're just going to paper over that you didn't know that attribution graphs even existed until this point and thought that CoT was the only way to audit models, now are we? Duly noted.

2) Also duly noted: that you had so little clue what you were talking about that you had an AI write your post for you - not only obvious by the weird formatting, but by the heavy use of emdashes. You clearly told an AI "write a counterargument for this topic I don't understand" and posted it in.

Do I really want to waste time responding to something that you don't even care to take the time to learn about yourself? Let's at least respond to the non-AI part... oh wait, you just copied that off a website word for word :P And even there you had to take them out of context - your "look more definitive than it really is" is right before clarifying " is that researchers have gained a valuable microscope with a limited field of view" - not "a black box". Do you not feel at all embarrassed at all this flailing you're doing to not lose face in this thread?

Let me help you: attribution graphs show you the piece you choose to look at at any given point in time. It is impossible to hold the whole process in mind at once, as that is far too complicated (you can't generally hold all of large conventional software projects in memory either, for that matter), but you can isolate down the key pieces making individual decisions, just like you can trace back results on conventional software. E.g. if you're trying to figure out "Why did it make this diagnosis?", you can determine the key factors that weighed on the diagnosis. And if you're wondering how any of those contributory circuits reached their conclusions, you can drill them down, on and on, back through simple activating features and all the way down to individual neurons if you need to. Indeed, we didn't arrive at the high level picture immediately, we started with tracing back simpler features and circuits.

We can tear down every decision down to the root; it's just a question of how much we care about tracing everything back vs. saying "Yeah, this feature consistently activates when a patient is reporting headaches and we can artificially activate or remove a headache signal; that's good enough" and not waste more time bothering with it. What you care about in understanding "how they come to the results they have to offer" is the high-level picture. Just like how when evaluating why a human-written program is exhibiting a given behavior, you don't start by drilling down into every line of every library printing call or whatnot - you start at the high level, and only drill down if you need to. If a function says it's a sleep function and it consistently seems to sleep, unless you have any reason to doubt it, you don't drill down into the sleep code, even though it's technically possible that it's doing something else as well in rare cases.

It's also worth pointing out that such papers on attribution graphs are old news by this point and we've far moved on (literally, that was work on Claude 3.5 Haiku - Claude is up to 5.5 now) - I link it only as an introduction. This is rote these days. For example, in the blog you plagiarized without credit, it says - "At the same time, evidence of planning in a constrained poetry task should not be inflated into a claim that an LLM has stable long-horizon agency in every setting." - but that was well addressed by the J-space.

I'll repeat: LLMs are not "black boxes" that you cannot see into. You can determine why any given decision was made, if you only care to. It is a myth that we are blind to their decisionmaking. That was once true. It no longer is. Stop repeating that misinformation.

Believe it or not, security disclosures aren't "a scheme".

It's genuinely nice that you have fond memories of disassembling a George Foreman grill cluster, and also very sad that Sony killed Other OS, but that rugpull was pretty much inevitable once it was discovered that the PS3 running Linux was the finest Blu-Ray ripper man had conceived, which in turn was pretty much inevitable anyway since Sony gave access to the drive through the hypervisor.

As you say, statistically nobody is upgrading the RAM on their raspi, but it sure would be nice if customers who bought a bunch of these things could upgrade them to give them some life down the road. I've been for some reason continually surprised at how much rework capacity seems to be available, and I think they could reasonably contract that out.

While everything you said in your comment is true, we might and someday get an actually Open RISC-V implementation. It's legally possible, unlike ARM or x86. Perhaps we could instead have an outdated MIPS or SPARC, but why would we want that except for hobbyism? I honestly would like both, but only as toys.

From an end user point of view, I am using amd64. The OSS Linux drivers are just so good now there's almost no sense in using anything else at this moment if that's what you want to run. For once I regret buying an Nvidia GPU! But that's a whole other discussion.

Liz made a video showing Android working and saying they would release it soon, and then we never heard about it again.

That is, to be fair, one of the nicer things you've said to me. In fact though it's your usual grade of hyperbolic hooplah because this is one of the things I've ranted about the least, at least in this decade.

I have been working on keeping it around since they stopped using it when it became clear that they were the ultimate cucks. So yes, you are in this case 100% correct, coward. I was absolutely inspired by the maggots' use of cuck, but only indirectly because it only became good to me when it became embarrassing to them. Is that petty? Fuck 'em. Anything that beats them over the head with what they said has the potential, however slight, to get through their skulls.

I think the best way to do it is probably through a trusted distribution chain. This can also be manipulated in nasty ways so some people won't trust it, but in it's what I would trust most. They'd need to do some testing of products sourced anonymously from those distributors to verify that it was working to make it trustworthy. I'd prefer it be in-house but they could probably afford to pay someone reputable at this point.

I didn't look into any of them at all except Debian, where it was really weird. They rushed a decision without consulting the usual breadth of stakeholders. In their case the excuse was GNOME 3 but I'm not aware that anyone was especially clamoring for that.

Cops commit a lot of violent crimes. Factor that in, boot sucker.

You're eager for Google to be replaced by space Nazi internet? I don't think that's an upgrade.

"post-quantum transition"

At this point it's impossible to tell whether I'm done laughing or not.

I don't think there is a solution. In all seriousness, if I were starting my career from scratch today, I would avoid anything that can be done purely remotely, and quite likely go into a skilled trade - Not romanticizing "hands-on" work, I realize it has its own down-sides, but it's becoming increasingly clear we'll still have elevator techs and plumbers longer than we'll have programmers and accountants.

AI has effectively already killed white collar jobs going forward, whether or not those outside tech have noticed yet. It can more-or-less replace junior-level workers today, and with no juniors there will be no seniors later and no principals twenty+ years from now. Though even if we somehow find a way to backfill the experience pipeline, I have little doubt AI will be coming for even the best of us within a decade. Maybe it'll hit some unforeseen ceiling before then, but that's not a bet I'm eager to take.

I'm talking about the original Pis whose USB would crater with any non trivial traffic. Those boards were defective and they should have replaced them. That should have been the end of the raspi when they didn't.