Yeah. It's bloody exhausting reading articles with the singular they.

If you don't like english, there are many others to choose from. But the singular they has been with us since english was still laden with thees and thous with the oldest examples going back to the 1300s so I'm afraid the ancestor to which one should direct complaints died long ago. Probably aged 30 of some sort of medieval plague.

Well, FWIW, I've never found a site *through* substack. They were always referrals from something else I was reading, which might have been *on* substack.

But that answer is false.

You're not really comparing like with like. When we talk about vulnerabilities in Windows we're talking about the entire operating system. The bugs that have come up the last few days were in the Linux kernel.

Basically if all those 167 vulns were in KRNL386.EXE (or whatever the Windows kernel is called these days) it'd be comparable in terms of stats.

I don't doubt there are fewer vulnerabilities in, say, Debian than there are in Windows (which is more of a like-for-like comparison) but you undermine the argument by comparing a kernel to a full blown operating system.

That would be awesome if it prompts the current admin to actually regulate AI.

It won't, because AI is coming from our billionaire overlords, who are too stupid to understand the consequences of... well, anything they do these days. But it'd be nice nonetheless.

Ah, gotcha. You were referring to the comment from the summary, not mine. Yeah, it's fun to watch the young'uns realize that they are absolutely going to spend their whole lives realizing they forgot something they used to know. It's even more fun to watch them the first time they look at code they wrote two months ago and say "Who wrote this stupid shit? Oh....".

Socialism predates communism. Communism is influenced by it, but it's not an "intermediary state", it's not even a "state". It's a simple principle that the people who labor should control (the usual term is "own" but that's a little misleading) the means of production. There's a second component that is usually unsaid that ends up being a principle of the ideology in practice - that cooperation is encouraged instead of competition.

Unions are one example (and go right to the heart of why I said "own" is misleading), because unions seek to increase the power of workers within a business that would otherwise be controlled by its shareholders.

Another is the government owning businesses on the grounds the government and the people are one. But that only works (ideologically) if the country is genuinely democratic, and it still doesn't work well because there's quite a dilution of ownership going on there, leading to a substantial gap between the people doing the job and their control over it.

The purest form of socialism in most democratic countries is the cooperative movement, where businesses are owned by the people who work for them. (Not to be confused with cooperatives where the customers own the company, for some reason.) That is literally the workers owning the means of production.

Basically the author of this piece has probably gotten their terminology from a combination of Ayn Rand and online people who think "socialismism is where the government does it, the more the government does the more socialistismist it is. Like Nazi Germany. Did you know Nazi has the word socialist in it? Clearly a socialist movement! And Unions are bad because they are socialist, therefore must be Hitler and Stalin who are totally the same guy, I mean, they are both famously mustachioed And dictators And had "socialistismistism" in the name of their movements" and repeat this crap all the time.

Anyway, Unions are not some intermediate step towards Marxism. Not even close. Unions, cooperative movements, and, yes, the government owning some businesses, have historically been ways to prevent countries from falling to Marxism by addressing workers concerns, using some socialism to stave off a far more problematic and less likely to leave anyone happy thing. And there's nothing wrong with that. Perhaps if rich people stopped forgetting who made them rich, they'd spend less time worrying at night about regime change.

Your post was quite reasonable, and probably true, until you wrote "AIs aren't capable of reasoning". There *are* definitions of reasoning for which that it true, but they aren't the ones in common use. Cicero would use that kind of definition in his "school of rhetoric", where he taught people how to win arguments". Socrates would not. He was trying to find truth.

Clearly AIs have limited reason. They can (at least in principle) do perfect logic, but the difference between that an reason is not well defined. (And logic can prove that you can't prove algebra to be self-consistent.) To me reason is evaluating a set of data and a goal, and using logic to plot a nearly-optimal path to achieve the goal. I think where AIs are generally most deficient is in their goals, though obviously they also have an imperfect understanding of the current state. (Well, so do people.)

That said, there are many areas where current AIs seem deficient when compared with people. This doesn't mean or imply that they don't have a modest amount of the features that they are deficient in, but merely that we expect them to have more. Think of capabilities as being gradients rather than boolean variables. This is commonly called "jagged capabilities". They're better at some things than most people are, and worse at other things than most people are.

How do you know?
I will grant that there are definitions of "feelings" that would make your statement true by definition, but I will guarantee that most people don't use those definitions.

If you want to claim "it's synthetic, therefore it can't be a feeling", you've deprived your mind of a tool for thinking in this space. Submarines don't swim, but airplanes fly. Perhaps it's not useful to think of submarines as swimming, and perhaps it's useful to think of airplanes as flying. And perhaps it's useful to think of LLMs as having feelings. (Also perhaps it isn't, but just asserting that isn't useful, you need to demonstate it. My wife found it useful to attribute feelings to her car. The model didn't work for me, but it worked for her.)

A quick search didn't provide an answer, but the indications were that the cosmic voids are much of the universe. The search of turned up things like https://link.springer.com/arti... , but didn't actually reveal the proportion of the volume of the universe that is contained within cosmic voids, but did *indicate* that it sure wasn't trivial.

Well, I'm no expert in the field, but that's what I've read.

Really? Doesn't feel that way at all to me. What it feels like is that LLMs are a massive force multiplier for the skills I already have.

Why the scare quotes? Are you uncertain if she's a woman? Or do you not understand how to use quotation marks?

Did they steal stuff worth millions?

Though, of course, this raises the question of why someone would leave valuable masters in a suitcase in an unoccupied core.