corbin

Emacs and GNU can't stop failing to uphold the mission of Free Software. This mailing-list post has been going around and I think that it is a very good indicator of how head-up-ass the GNU project has become. Note that this email is not from RMS; the problem can't be blamed on a particular BDFL. The following quote from the email is sufficient to completely end my interest in contributing to GNU ever again:

The Free Software movement doesn't pursue the goal of "liberty for all humanity". If you think it does, you are gravely mistaken. Our goals are different, and are well described elsewhere.

While the topic is about accepting chatbot contributions, it could also e.g. be about accepting contributions from members of Suckless or other fascist organizations; in the email, our brave GNU hero says that they'd accept contributions made with slave labor, too.

To complexity theorists, this is an extremely funny situation; I bet OpenAI started by asking the bot about P vs NP and they got the worst-possible result, a useless and unexpected refutation of a conjecture. To be clear, I don't trust Lean or OpenAI, so I don't yet accept this result, but I hear Ryan Williams and Russell Impagliazzo are hand-checking the proof and I do trust them.

It's too bad that Janus got cooked. They didn't set up sufficient defenses, but also they drank too deeply. I still think that their framing, that the chatbots are simulators of conversations, is the best one; it's honestly kind of pathetic how they then claim that the simulations are alive, intelligent, sapient, etc.

Of the numbers that are present in the document, a lot are unaudited and were not worked out according to GAAP — which S-1 numbers are supposed to conform to. There’s whole multi-page subsections of these BS numbers that you should not see in a credible S-1.

In the USA, GAAP is not optional for large businesses. GAAP is expected for businesses with thousands of customers at a minimum; Anthropic wants to scale up to millions of customers and therefore has zero excuses for non-GAAP numbers. Please be less UK-brained in the future, thanks.

LW's contribution to Spooky Month is, unsurprisingly, a horror story about chatbots taking over the world. I have so many thoughts. Choice sneer, doesn't spoil anything: The problem with dictators is not "the fact that the dictator might, and often will, abuse his power", you high-modernist twit, the problem with dictators is that they necessarily have a personal individual opinion which is not sufficiently flexible to accommodate the inevitable diversity of their subjects.

If this was satire, and the entire point was to bait LW'ers and me into taking it seriously, then well done. But I get the feeling that the author's not really joking much.

What assets? Like, yes they could acquire the database of user prompts and chats, but this is like saying that I could acquire a gently-used Playboy from the woods. And I presume that, just like with ABC and ESPN, Disney will start looking for synergy, but Character doesn't have any character copyrights which can be extracted into theme-park attractions, nor would Character's users appreciate a Disney-fication of their UX, nor is Character's core service profitable on its own with no changes.

Oh, to have a second upvote. Literally the only two modes of interaction I've had with Torvalds, across multiple kernel summits, are either (1) he ignores me, maybe kind of grunting, while I'm trying to say something like "good morning" or "how are you?", or (2) yelling at the person standing next to me, who I'm trying to collaborate with, and thus yelling at me by proxy. I hope it's no wonder that I only hack kernel in private, for patches I need, or for close friends.

I haven't really kept up, but it looks like Character's business model was still focused on NSFW content. If so, then this is also a disaster for the industry at large, since NSFW content is one of the few genuine money-printers for chatbot and image-generation services; people really do want thousands of iterations of the same fantasy, slightly changed in order to stay engaging, and Character was highly recommended as a source of affordable slop. (Examples of unaffordability include the rampant free-tier abuse on ChatGPT, Gemini, and Grok; I'm assuming that customers are willing to open their wallets at least a little. In general, the porn industry turns a profit, so I do think that people will pay for porn.)

My prior estimate (previously, on Awful and on Lobsters) was that token generation was subsidized to the tune of an effective 80-90% discount; this looks to be more in the 90-95% range. For contrast, consider chatbot-booster Willison's belief, in reply above, that Chinese labs will magically produce a five-fold improvement in token production; this still would be between two to four times slower than needed to turn a profit for Character.

For copyright purposes, all patches must be substantially human-written. However, it seems that most patches are now prepared with chatbot assistance, so that effectively means that people are required to be psychotic centaurs in order to keep up with review demand. There's an LWN secret link from the documentation lieutenant which summarizes the linked LKML thread. My former lieutenant, in the Direct Rendering Manager (DRM) subsystem, is apparently having a bad time:

Airlie asked his sub-maintainers; most of them identified him as the biggest pain point. More seriously, it was that the DRM subsystem is still seeing too many regressions. There is a push within the subsystem to move development to GitLab in order to use its CI features; he is not standing in the way because he wants to see how it turns out.

This is a more systemic problem than one might expect, because DRM (and DRI, Direct Rendering Infrastructure) are partially shared between Linux and the BSDs. This subsystem has creaked along under the weight of corporate expectations for decades, mostly fueled by a kind of quiet sponsorship of young university folks from GPU vendors along with outsourced drivers produced behind corporate privacy and thrown over the wall. Every vendor, even our eternal nemesis nVidia, has made repeated concessions in order to try to figure out the maintainer burden, but it seems that we are still dependent on Airlie's stoutness and willingness to get shouted at by Torvalds.

Previously, on Awful, Gutsick Gibbon spent an hour ripping apart T. Beale's (VD's) anti-evolution book. She was still angry though, so she got her prior collaborator and four friends to join her for a complete dissection of VD's bullshit claims. Content warning for literally everything awful we discuss here, including sex crimes, neo-Nazis, Silicon Valley bullshit, and remarkably bad arithmetic. My choice sneer is her chosen video title, "Six Scientists Roast One Racist Loser (Heartwarming) (Four Hours) (Hopecore)". GG's requested that we not give VD any attention other than reminding him that he's such a pathetic loser that even white nationalists disavow him as too boring and insipid, so I'm not posting this to a top-level topic, but I'm getting a lot of household chores done while listening to it in the background and maybe you will too.

While doing research on our friends, I found (a disowned Reddit comment which found) another banger from the guy who pointed out that pinball is too chaotic for superintelligences to predict (discussed previously, on Awful): whole-bird emulation requires quantum mechanics, or "WBE requires QM" for short. Apparently WBE was a minor meme inside the community at some point, but I'm not sure who first noticed the situation. In short, birds with certain chemicals in their eyes may have the ability to sense magnetic fields due to QM effects. (I'd normally recommend WP on this, but the relevant article is bizarrely skeptical about the situation, although it does include a decent diagram.) As such, our friends consider the possibility that their vaunted superintelligence tasks (ancestor simulations, Newcomb predictors, etc.) are harder than WBE, which itself is much harder than e.g. cracking classical cryptography with Shor's algorithm or some other not-yet-reached quantum-computing task. The author left a great sneer in the comments:

Adding a compass is unlikely to also make the bird disoriented when exposed to a weak magnetic field which oscillates at the right frequency. Which means that the emulated bird will not behave like the real bird in this scenario. You could add this phenomenon in by hand. Attach some detector to your compass and have it turn off the compass when these fields are measured. More generally, adding in these features ad hoc will likely work for the things that you know about ahead of time, but is very unlikely to work like the bird outside of its training distribution. If you have a model of the bird that includes the relevant physics for this phenomenon, it is much more likely to work outside of its training distribution.

Ro-ro-rotate your model of the bird, rotate your model of the bird for science!

Famous mathematician Terry Tao has published slides for "Math 2.0", a talk where he discusses how mathematics and chatbots can integrate. I suspect that Dr. Tao has fucking lost it. I don't know how far the chatbots have misled him vs. how much of this is his unawareness of non-number-theoretic maths, but his "ablation studies" and "neighborhood of a theorem" are already studied in reverse maths, and chatbots have not lowered the complexity of proof search, so there's not really a sense in which chatbots replace any of the proof-oriented parts of practicing mathematics, regardless of the quality of what they say.

Related: a doctor who denied COVID-19 vaccine efficacy (and thus should not be trusted) has chimed in to say that Dr. Tao doesn't understand cancer research; in particular, he doesn't understand that (1) we already throw a bunch of chemicals at the wall to see what's effective, and (2) terminal cancer patients rarely hesitate to sign up for human-challenge trials and experimental pretrials, on account of having decreasingly little to lose. The orange-site commentariat have several similar complaints about Dr. Tao's position.