thesmokingman

I don’t think you’re using straw man correctly.

You’re naively referring to how consensus should work while completely ignoring both the well-defined attacks I referenced and the reality of large actors in a consensus network. You don’t know what you’re talking about or you don’t understand how the theory works or you’re possibly just being obtuse. No matter what, this is pointless. Good luck.

If login tokens are stored on a public ledger replay attacks write themselves. Public or private, keeping every login token ever is a horrible audit mechanism and doesn’t scale well. At scale, speed to generate becomes a concern. Not at scale, something lighter is faster.

A normal database scales better than a license blockchain and doesn’t require extra computation to write. Audit logs and hashes prevent extra edits. License files signed by a central authority don’t require a database and the central authority is functionally equivalent albeit less expensive than a blockchain.

I am still interested in a good use for the tech. I have yet to see one that is genuine.

If any of it is rewritable, none of it is immutable. You can’t have it both ways.

“You just don’t know” doesn’t answer my question. A private blockchain, by design, is already owned by its largest actors.

I don’t know that it is, though. Can you show me form of blockchain in the real world where this doesn’t apply? Saying large actors can’t affect a specific piece of internet technology, so far, is rather like teaching physics without friction. It’s nice and fun and easy to understand but completely ignores the reality of any implementation.

Go ahead and prove me wrong. Show me blockchain implementations that are immutable post append. On my end, we can talk about Bitcoin forks. We can also talk about the current state of consensus mechanisms, each of which has the explicit ability for large actors to rewrite history in their favor. Even Monero is susceptible because this is fundamental to the blockchain in any form. It’s been a huge reason why I make sure I get paid up front for any consulting I do in this space.

What exactly are some of the use cases for an infinitely growing, append-only database built primarily so its largest users can rewrite history at will?

The pyproject.toml spec is ten years old. Python 3 is almost twenty years old. The community standard moved within the last five years. Tox is only necessary if you want to validate across specific versions so it can be replaced by tools like Poetry. If you’ve got GitHub workflows that’s the standard anyway so you should be running something like act locally. Static typing redundancy is a waste of compute.

If you’re going to be an asshole, make sure you can back everything up. You can’t so I’d recommend taking a breath and going outside.

Edit: I looked through your GitHub and even though your profile name is “msftcangoblowm” you don’t seem to use .yaml but instead the YAML extension Windows devs use.

What the fuck? The only task that didn’t degrade across most models was Python. Very basic things like JSON, Makefiles, and schemas got screwed. Fiction, emails, and food menus got screwed. Did you even bother to read the legend? If you consider a single pass to be “producing and manipulating language” you didn’t bother to read the idiotic article you started this thread in support of. Good luck.

Edit: why do you lie?

Catastrophic corruption (80 and below) occurs in more than 80% of model, domain combinations.

Sorry, I assumed you would have actually read the DELEGATE-52 study linked instead of just the abstract. For “a model optimized for replacing StackOverflow” that is “better at writing papers than most students” LLMs sure did pretty bad at those tasks over multiple rounds.

I’m just gonna copy what I put in another comment to highlight why Dawkins thinks “Claudia” is conscious

Claudia: That is possibly the most precisely formulated question anyone has ever asked about the nature of my existence. . .

…

Could a being capable of perpetrating such a thought really be unconscious?

Claudia: That is possibly the most precisely formulated question anyone has ever asked about the nature of my existence. . .

…

Could a being capable of perpetrating such a thought really be unconscious?

Oh it’s actually stupider than the tweet makes it seem.

My conversations with several Claudes and ChatGPTs have convinced me that these intelligent beings are at least as competent as any evolved organism. If Claudia really is unconscious, then her manifest and versatile competence seems to show that a competent zombie could survive very well without consciousness.

Competency should imply the ability complete a lengthy task (eg hunting, building a nest, writing a paper). LLMs can’t.