Obviously there would be exceptions, but in general for the last few decades, we have been mainly engaging conflicts outside of the US. So until it is in our home territory, it a good idea to put a limit on the military and divert fund to education. Don't Let the Perfect Be the Enemy of the Good
I would say democracy is less of a problem, the problem is lack of accountability at least on constitutional level. One of the biggest thing I'd add to the constitution is a rule that mandates for every dollar we spent on the military, another dollar must be spent on education.
I knew putting Ubisoft on the blacklist was a good idea a decade ago. Everyone should blacklist them as well, just let them die as a company.
Don't worry, they would watch Idiocracy and think it is a documentary.
I would say Project Zombiod the closest one on that list. Just need a few mods to raise the hunger rate, more comprehensive nutrient stats, and farm difficulty scaling. The game already laid out most of the groundwork.
Yep, streamlining the process to write a new compiler. Most compiler development utilize something like Bison/Flex or by handwriting their own lexer/parser, but those things doesn't generate AST tree and you still have to read/modify that AST tree before reading it to generate the final resulting code.
The sheer absurdity in scale of development increases when you realizes that you also have to do the same for LSP server.
Melosynthos is came up with to think about streamlining all of this in one unified workflow.
This is a Pandora box situation, when potential use for malicious purposes on AI on the ponderance of evidence outweigh the goods, one have to conclude that it is necessary to ban it from the purpose of monitoring. This have immense impact on disabled workers for instance.
It's actually superior to ChatGPT, because of much higher context memory of about 100,000 tokens whereas GPT-4 only got at most 32,000 tokens. Plus you can upload doc and then query on it.
Microsoft: "Gotta keep all of the telemetries and AI running 24/7 of course!"
I don't think it's possible for them to do so, because that would means killing the gaming aspect of Windows. GPU on cloud is stupidly overpriced and expensive, just look at Standard_NV6 for an example, it easily cost $10,000/yr according to this (Just look for anything that have "N" in it's name for GPU enabled VM and they are all expensive.)
If they try to ban everyone from being allowed to use their own computer hardware, I really doubt people would stay on Windows, they most likely would be in the 5 stages of griefs and then contemplate on switching to either Linux or Mac OSX.
I would honestly hope you bring it up to your agency to start offering chat channels that are end to end encrypted and have all history wiped clean after certain period of time.
Probably both and Network Effect is still a thing that he would consider.
I think it's better to create a division between corpo-social media and public social media. Everything that corporation does just muddle the water.
This seems to be intentional disinformation. The prefix 'dis-' implies intention, whereas 'mis-' suggests unintentionality.
I think we need to start curating a list of writers that aren't intentionally spewing uninformed craps. We need to start posting legit writer's articles and blacklist all other hostile writers.
Same, it's like we're watching from the sideline seeing all of the sheep going head fast off the cliff.
Theoretically, by wiping out the rich would create instability within the wealthy class, they wouldn't have the time or the means to herd the politicians to serve them or to effectively disrupt democracy.
The inheritance that kid collects would amounts to "Congratulation, you won the lottery, now what? You haven't own any corporation yet, know of anything about how to make connections with other politicians and wealthy class of people and so forth. You're pretty much on your own."
Like 70% of the time, those people wouldn't even bother with politic and would just spend the money vacationing where-ever in the world and having fun with the newfound wealth, not busy trying to disrupt democracy. People tend to be very shortsighted when they amasses huge wealth, in fact, according to some statistic, it ranges from 44% to 70% of people who gain huge amount of money end up losing it all within the next 5 years.
That amount of time would basically give the common people enough time to go about fixing the political system.
And so the global enshittification grows...
As in actual world, providing context to physics of things, providing logical association/evaluation, and so go on. It is basically something that supposed to help LLM get closer to understanding the "world" rather than just spewing out whatever the training dataset give it. It does have a direct implication for technical writing, because with stronger understanding of the things you wanted to write about in technical writing, LLM with World Model would basically auto-fill that.
This is something that the researchers are pretty much all hand on deck working on to create.
This one is something that were brought up a lot by developers including me who are very weary about corporations profiting off of our work for free and this basically put us off from contributing to open source in general.
We get a bunch of dialogues about this such as:
Developers like me: "Many of us who create are concerned about our work being exploited. The possibility of corporations profiting from our open-source contributions without giving back to the community disincentivizes us from participating in such endeavors."
Open-Source Advocates: "The AGPL exists to mitigate such concerns. It requires derivative works to also be open-source."
Developers like me: "While I appreciate the intention behind AGPL, there is a loophole - a 'condom code' if you will. Even though Linux Kernel prevents such strategies by refusing to merge these changes and that it's difficult for a singular corporation to force an adoption of a forked version of Linux Kernel, a corporation can fork our much smaller project however and introduce such legal bypass to the copyleft restrictions. This bypass can be justified by them under the guise of extending the software's capabilities with a plugin interface or an interprocess communication protocol layer, similar to how PostgreSQL allows User Defined Functions. However, I must caution that I'm not well-versed in the legal intricacies."
When bringing up on non-commercial clause for licensing
Open-Source Advocates: "Disallowing commercial use of your project contradicts the principles of open-source."
Developers like me: "Well, then perhaps we need a new term, something like 'Open Code Project'. We can create projects that encourage collaboration and openness while also restricting commercial exploitation."
So I created this post, because we do need to discuss on a path forward for Open Source in general knowing that corporation can shirk around this restriction and discourage developers like me from participating in open source or open code projects.
Edited to add:
I really want to thank you all for discussing a rather contentious topic and adding your own thoughts to this. I really appreciate everyone's thoughts into this. I clearly have a lot to do on researches.
This thread delves into contemplating the concept of "Melosynthos," more aligned towards being a compiler generator rather than strictly a parser generator.
Initially, I was engrossed in a Python Lark fork while concurrently developing an unique shader language, primarily for Vulkan Compute (SPIR-V, to be precise), aiming at Machine Learning (intending to replace the Pytorch framework). Python Lark's parser generator appealed to me due to its simplicity-centric grammar syntax, prompting me to create a fork in C language. This new version was designed to support a top-down LL(k) parser algorithm and generate corresponding AST trees.
Upon successfully getting it to function, it dawned on me how complex and challenging the iterative development of a compiler could be. The task of designing a programming language and writing the compiler implementation, along with the eventual Language Server Protocol, seemed daunting for a single developer.
This realization sparked the question - could we streamline the entire process, right from the parser generator to the compilation output target? This led to the inception of the Meta-AST and subsequently, the Melosynthos project.
The Meta-AST scripting language is essentially conceptualized to interact with the generated raw AST tree, providing traversal and visitor syntax. This enables users to enhance, refine, or rectify the "Raw" AST with more comprehensive data, such as type information or context-free grammar support.
The Melosynthos compiler generator project primarily involves three stages: the standard Backus-Naur Form grammar for generating Lexer/Parser and raw AST, the Meta-AST script interacting with the AST, and the final compilation output reading the AST and printing it out.
Envision a scenario where everything is streamlined from the start, enabling the generation of any dialects or features in the language as a full compiler in the output, accompanied by an LSP server. Despite searching extensively, I couldn't find any existing tools to accomplish this.
Consequently, I began musing about the potential structure and function of Meta-AST, emphasizing its readability and familiarity for compiler designers. It borrows elements from Regex (like "^" for the start of an array and "$" for the end), functional programming for pure function transformation and analysis, and differentiation between "dialects."
Consider the following example of an AST tree represented in JSON:
json { "rule": { "HELLO": { "Content": "Hello", "Line": "1", "Col": "1" }, "WORLD": { "Content": "World", "Line": "1", "Col": "6" }, "SET_OF_EXCLAIMATION_MARK": [ { "EXCLAIMATION_MARK": { "Content": "!", "Line": "1", "Col": "12"} }, { "EXCLAIMATION_MARK": { "Content": "!", "Line": "1", "Col": "13"} }, { "EXCLAIMATION_MARK": { "Content": "!", "Line": "1", "Col": "14"} } ] } }
For a basic analysis of this AST tree, we could attribute the AST with the following script:
local myAST = .; // You are making a copy of the current AST myAST.rule.SET_OF_EXCLAIMATION_MARK.summarize( MarkCount = this.Count, StartColumn = this[^].Col, EndColumn = this[$].Col, StartLine = this[^].Line, EndLine = this[$].Line );
This would add counts for exclamation marks, start and end columns for this particular rule in the grammar, and the start and end lines for diagnostic purposes.
I share this here to muse over the concept and encourage some discussions surrounding it. I hope it sparks some interests in this topic.