I sometimes wonder if compression is a key that can unlock human potential to access higher dimensions of thought.

We talk about the elegance of e=mc2. What we're really talking about is the ability to compress all of the ideas contained in relativity down into such a elegant equation.

The same thing is true for symbolism. We compress enormous amounts of information into a symbol like a crucifix, or in language, the amount of weight a word like Hitler can contain represents a level of compression used to convey meaning which we don't fully understand. Utilizing extreme levels of compression seems to allow the human mind, or perhaps consciousness, to grapple with more difficult and esoteric concepts.

Did they fix the bug where Chrome tries to track you and your behavior wherever you go and whatever you do in the world?

I literally am reading this after setting GitHub actions five minutes ago to generate the APK version of my cross platform project for the first time. Great :\

I'm not seeing how this project is open source exactly. It says license free, but that's just like ChatGPT. I wouldn't call that transparent. Maybe I'm missing something. Google had some difficulty translating the site from German.

They've open sourced some of the training and inference code: https://github.com/soofi-project

Their work is based on the nemotron arch (so far).

https://github.com/soofi-project/Soofi-Pretraining https://huggingface.co/Soofi-Project/Soofi-S-Base > "The final model will be released openly under a permissive license, without gated access. We will share access details as soon as it is ready."

not open weight yet

Or maybe we just ban celebrities from going to the Louvre, period. If you've decided that you need to be popular so badly that you ruin it for other people when you go to the public places, you should be banned from public places. Be happy with your fame and stay away from us peons. That's what you wanted.

Museums generally have to make rich people feel welcome because they require their patronage. The Louvre used to be an exception, operating as a sole project of the French government, but they've cut back substantially over the past few decades and the new endowment fund has filled the gap.

This is sad. I had a couple of one plus phones. I'm developing an app on one right now, and I told my mom to get one. She had it for eight years, and it's still working. Well, this is the final push, I guess, that I needed to get a Pixel and install GrapheneOS.

I do feel like I'm offloading thinking to an AI, but I think that's a good thing. I envision a world where users and AI are aligned without corporate interference. AI lets me offload things that I don't need to know and frees up my brain to push farther than I could before. At least that's how it feels to me.

>AI lets me offload things that I don't need to know and frees up my brain to push farther than I could before.

How can you push your brain go farther than ever, when you don't use it for the basic task?

Higher Math does not work without understanding "lower" Math, running long runs does not work without starting on shorter runs. Thinking about complicated staff will probly not work, if you can't think about the easy stuff.

One can not learn a language without vocabulary and skipping learning verbs in a foreign language, because dictionaries exists does not bring one closer to being able to speak.

I agree that when you're building mathematical understanding, you have to do it brick by brick. But the fact of the matter is it's been decades since I did a long division problem by hand. AI lets me jump into areas that I would previously have had to spend a month studying before I could begin building - That's what I mean by it lets me reach farther, faster.

You don't always have to do division by hand. I would make the argument that it's probably good to do it occasionally. At least enough to remember how.

I don't think offloading things that you "think" you don't need to know is a realistic thing. Instead this seems like some slippery slope of intellectual degradation where slowly you'll replace more and more parts of the thought process with AI which ends in some rather sad existence.

I agree, I suspect that when we say "oh, I don't need to know this", what we really mean is we have that unpleasant feeling behind our eyes that says this is not going to gratify my goal

The issue being, gratification is rarely a good guideline. It just means collapsing the gap between doing the thing and the idea of having done the thing. But that gap is where you actually learn things

Is a good thing depending on which ones. And our taste on what to specialize our judgment into varies a lot. One thing I do use as criteria to detect it can be a problem is in lack of understanding and lack of control of the layers that are part of verifications and diagnosing power.

I'm not exactly sure how you would go about grading mathematical proficiency. I went through calculus two and discrete mathematics, but I'm sure that there are things I have forgotten now even though I would be considered familiar with most leading edge AI technology. If I'm being honest, I'm not sure I could pass the final exams I took to get my CS degree right now.

I've heard it said that the Right to Repair bill that Trump signed actually only applies to exhaust systems and the right to repair to meet environmental protection standards. If that's true, then this is pretty meaningless. Does anyone know the truth?

I would much rather hear that they were hiring theoretical logicians than philosophers.We could use more people exploring the limits of prepositional and propositional logic and set theory than we need philosophy. AI is never going to become conscious, at least not the kind we have right now.

You mean mathematicians? CS majors also all study logic to some degree. I think we have enough of both in AI. Philosophers of mind, not so much.

Logicians are typically part of the philosophy department, at least in the US.

You do realize that propositional logic, set theory, and mapping the limits of formal systems are philosophy, right? You're literally describing mathematical logic and philosophy of language.

Logicians' training is so different from philosophers' that it should be considered a separate discipline, or under the branch of computer science.

When I was a young man I took three philosophy courses from a very old man who, when he was a young man, was the dissertation director of Alan Turing. The latter, by the way, was an habitué of the seminar of Wittgenstein.

I studied it getting my CS degree - you can literally write mathematical formulas using symbols and you can perform operations in logic. Very different from a philosophy class - excuse me if you were already aware.