• 0 Posts
Joined duela 2 urte
Cake day: ots. 15, 2021


This is great.

Laws should be objective and precise, just like algorithms are, so it would be a good fit to have laws modeled in a more machine-readable form… sure, interpreting those laws to pass fair judgement still requires a human eye, but I believe it should be possible to at least be able to consult your local law in a more user-friendly way… which I hope this could end up helping with.

And of course something like that would need to be Free and Open Source to be trustworthy at all to begin with…

I find it hard to believe that biologists and entomologists didn’t know about this already.

Most likely this is not new, I expect the problem is that there’s probably no profit any company can make in the short term from using these worms to break down plastics, so in the end nobody will do it, not unless someone finds a way to take advantage of it for profit (that, or having the State force them).

You are missing the point. A process-independent file opener that is used by all applications to access files provides user-friendly security.

But that was essentially what I said… I’m the one who proposed something like that 2 comments ago.

This would be a core component of an OS so the description is correct.

Again, I disagree that “this would be a core component of an OS”. You did not address any of my points, so I don’t see how it follows that “the description is correct”. The term “core OS component” is subjective to begin with.

But even if you wanted to label it that way, it wouldn’t make any difference. That’s just a label you are putting on it, it would not make Flatpak any less of an app distribution / management system with focus on cross-distro compatibility and containerization. Flatpak would still be Flatpak. Whether or not you want to consider it a core part of the OS is not important.

And Flatpak already uses independent processes to manage the whole container & runtime that the app uses for access to the system resources, which already closely matches what you defined as “a core component of an OS”.

That’s a very loose definition of “OS Component”. At that point you might as well consider the web browser an “OS Component” too, or frameworks like Retroarch, who offer a filesystem API for their libretro cores.

But even if we accepted that loose definition, so what? even as it is today Flatpak is already an “OS Component” integrated already in many distros (it’s even a freedesktop.org standard), and it already implements a filesystem interface layer for its apps. As I said, I think the real reason they won’t do it is because they keep wanting to be transparent to the app devs (ie. they don’t want them to have to support Flatpak-specific APIs). Which is why I think there needs to be a change of philosophy if they want app containerization to be seamless, safe and generally useful.

You can install different flatpak repos without really having to depend on one specific central repository, so I’d say the “centralizing software” issue is not that different from any typical package manager.

That said, I do agree that Flatpak has a lot of issues. Specifically the problems with redundancy and security. Personally I find Guix/Nix offers better solutions to many of the problems Flatpak tries to fix.

or learn how to do it and spend time configuring each and every application as needed

And even if they were to spend the time, afaik there’s simply no right way to configure a flatpak like GIMP so it can edit any file from any arbitrary location they might want without first giving it read/write permissions for every single of those locations and allowing the program to access those whole folder trees at any point in time without the user knowing (making it “unsafe”).

It shouldn’t have to be this way, there could be a Flatpak API for requesting the user for a file to open with their explicit consent, without requiring constant micro-management of the flatpak settings nor pushing the user to give it free access to entire folders. The issue is that Flatpak tries to be transparent to the app devs so such level of integration is unlikely to happen with its current philosophy.

Back when the anti-Stallman letter broke out, some transgender people were calling him “transfobe” for having openly proposed the use of a gender-neutral pronoun that he came up with as the preferred way to speak when you don’t know the gender of the person.

It seems promoting the use of a gender-neutral pronoun can be counterproductive. Some people might actually find it offensive and condescending.

No modern AI has been able to reliably pass the Turing test without blatant cheats (like allowing the use of foreign kids unable to understand/express/speak themselves fluently, instead of adults). Just because it dates back to the 1950s doesn’t make it any less valid, imho.

I was interested by the other tests you shared, thanks for that! However, in my opinion:

The Markus test is just a Turing Test with a video feed. I don’t think this necessarily makes the test better, it adds more requirements for the AI, but it’s unclear if those are actually necessary requirements for consciousness.

The Lovelace test 2.0 is also not very different from a Turing test where the tester is the developer and the questions/answers are on a specific domain, where it’s creativity is what’s tested. I don’t think this improves much over the original test either, since already in the Turing test you have freedom to ask questions that might already require innovative answers. Given the more restricted scope of this test and how modern procedural generation and neural nets have developed, it’s likely easier to pass the Lovelance test than the Turing test. And at the same time, it’s also easier for a real human to not pass it if they can’t be creative enough. I don’t think this test is really testing the same thing.

The MIST is another particular case of a more restricted Turing test. It’s essentially a standardized and “simplified” Turing test where the tester is always the same and asks the same questions out of a set of ~80k. The only advantage is that it’s easier to measure and more consistent since you don’t depend on how good the tester is at choosing their questions or judging the answers, but it’s also easier to cheat, since it would be trivial to make a program specifically designed to answer correctly that set of questions.

Oh but I agree that assuming our reality is solipsist isn’t useful for practical purposes. I’m just highlighting the fact that we do not know. We don’t have enough data preciselly because there are many things related to consciousness that we cannot test.

Personally I think that if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and acts like a duck then it probably is a duck (and that’s what the studies you are referencing generally need to assume). Which is why, in my opinion, the turing test is a valid approach (and other tests with the same philosophy).

Disregarding turing-like tests and at the same time assuming that only humans are capable of having “a soul” is imho harder to defend, because it requires additional assumptions. I think it’s easier to assume that either duck-likes are ducks or that we are in a simulation. Personally I’m skeptical on both and I just side with the duck test because it’s the more pragmatic approach.

Do we know for sure that our architecture is the same? How do you prove that we are really the same? For all I know I could be plugged to a simulation :P

If there was a way to test consciousness then we would be able to prove that we are at least interacting with other conscious beings… but since we can’t test that, it could theoretically be possible that we (I? you?) are alone, interacting with a big non-sentient and interconnected AI, designed to make us “feel” like we are part of a community.

I know it’s trippy to think that but… well… from a philosophical point of view, isn’t that true?

Personally, I think this has very little to do with computing power and more to do with sensorial experience and replicating how the human brain interacts with the environment. It’s not about being able to do calculations very fast, but about what do those calculations do and how are they conditioned, what stimuli are the ones that cause them to evolve, in which way and by how much.

The real problem is that to think like a human you need to see like a human, touch like a human, have instincts of a human, the needs of a human and the limitations of a human. From babies we learn from things by touching, sucking, observing, experimenting, moved by instincts such as wanting food, wanting companionship, wanting approval from our family… all the things that ultimatelly motivate us. A human AI would make mistakes just like we do, because that’s how our brain works. It might just be little more than a toddler and it could still be a human-like AI.

If “what we call a soul” means consciousness, then I doubt there’s a way to prove that anything else than your own self can be shown to actually have a soul. Not even what we call “other people”.

You being aware of your own consciousness doesn’t mean every human necessarily is in the same, right? …and since we lack of a way to prove consciousness then we can’t assume other people are any more conscious than an AI could be.

I mean… when it comes to public chatrooms, even if you federate, both the hosting and the control of the chatroom are centralized anyway, so the only benefit of federating is the “nice-to-have” convenience of not needing multiple accounts, which you can already get if you set up bridging anyway… so imho, an IRC channel with proper bridging covers all bases and allows cross-communicating with many different protocols. Since IRC is fairly simple it’d be relatively easy to bridge it with automatic or minimal steps for the user.

Personally, I think it’s 1-on-1 communication what makes federation (or p2p) be the most useful, or maybe private groups too, but federation in public groups isn’t really necessary. Imho, it makes more sense to solve the “multiple accounts” problem with specialized authentication services, and separate user management from content providers.

my counter-point was that most people aren’t open to installing an operating system

I mean, the original point didn’t say users should be required to install it themselves. It just said that phones should have an open source OS to increase their life span, which is something your “counter-point” is just building up on, not contradicting nor opposing it.

In fact, not every Android phone has open source firmware available that properly supports the hardware, so there are many cases where even if you knew how to install it you wouldn’t be able to.

Exceptions like the Pinephone are super rare, and I wouldn’t expect that to change without force.

I agree. There needs to be either legislation or a consumer driven shift. The real problem is that most users don’t seem to care that much about that and prefer getting a new shiny one with the latest trending features instead of a Pinephone or Fairphone.

I think the point was that open source software makes it last much longer. If using open source Android OS has extended the life of your phone then you are proving his point.

Of course it’s not the only thing that can extend the life of the phone, and of course additional measures should be taken to extend it further, but that doesn’t contradict anything the comment said.

Also, if having an open source OS isn’t a “simple option” for “typical consumer”, then we aren’t even there yet. Imho the phones should come with a fully open source OS that is easily upgradable independently of the manufacturer right out from the store.

This is all human-made. One way or another, the cause is always between monitor and the chair. One of the reasons I find the crypto space so toxic and dangerous is their insistence on technosolutionism.

Preciselly, you can’t stop technosolutionism if you don’t differentiate between the technical factors and the human ones.

Saying technical issues are all the same as human ones or in the same level (just because they are “human-made”) is in fact technosolutionist.

The goal is to solve human issues by manipulating technology, not solving problems in the technology by manipulating humans. Manipulating humans is not in the same level as manipulating technology… I think that this should be pretty clear.

Your analogy falls apart due to how small the ratio of non-scammy uses of NFTs to scammy ones is.

The issue is that if the nature of NFTs already makes such purchases “scammy” for you then, of course, most of it will be “scammy”. But note that something feeling scammy to you is not the same as committing actual fraud. If someone is fully aware that they are buying something because they purposefully want to speculate with it in an extremely unstable market, then it’s their own fault if the risk they took doesn’t pay off. That’s not the same thing as getting scammed.

Myself, I’m not one to invest in such risks, and in fact, right now my bank is charging me money just because I have the money stored in my account doing nothing, which it makes no sense that they’d charge me for that! I wish I could just have it all as cash stored in a vault at home and don’t need banks, but sadly sending cash by post is not exactly secure (nor generally accepted). It’s too bad there isn’t a safe and government-backed cryptocurrency infrastructure in place. I would certainly find that useful.

And they will not be able to solve [domain names] with blockchain tech.

Some have already used the blockchain for that purpose though. Gittorrent used the bitcoin blockchain before (I’m not up to date on what’s the current state on that project, I hear it’s no longer maintained and there are other alternatives). And there’s also the ENS for .eth domain names which are distributed, or am I wrong?

We’re talking legal issues […], disputes […] Neither of these can be written down in code, be it on blockchain or not.

But those are human issues, they should not be in the code itself, just like they aren’t in the code of current DNS servers either. Instead, the tech should just be transparent and flexible enough to allow that kind of human control (again, humans are meant to manipulate the technology, not the other way around).

If anything, I’d imagine a public ledger in a blockchain with proper authorization using government issued signatures would make it easier to track and identify the owner and have legislation impart whatever sanction or punishment. Wouldn’t it? (I’m not even sure if the current DNS system allows this, I believe you can get domain names with some level of anonymity if you really want to).

I think the problem here is getting to the sweet spot between privacy and identification, maybe with different levels for different purposes. If this was controlled by each government and there were some layers in place and measures that allowed some level of anonymity at the same time as allowed disclosure in circumstances that require it, this could be a tool very controlled and safe.

In particular, I think a public p2p ledger would be helpful to have traceability of public funds in a way that can be peer-reviewed without depending on the government “accidentally” losing a hard disk or destroying evidence “by mistake”. Which is something I’ve seen happen more than once in my country whenever there’s an internal investigation for corruption.

It’s essentially a wrapper around Webkit.

Knowing the people at suckless, I was surprised when they launched surf based on Webkit instead of going for a cleaner & simpler engine like the one from NetSurf, even if that would have meant most websites wouldn’t work. After all, the web is anything but clean & simple. Compromising the UX in favor of cleaner code never stopped the suckless team before.

FLOSS community is not perfect, for example, but bullshit gets called out. Projects that make exorbitant claims about security (snakeoil, etc), get called out. But crypto scene acts as if that’s bad for business.

I think we have to differentiate the technical factors from the human ones. Calling out security vulnerabilities is not a problem, but when the cause is between the monitor and the chair then things get much more complicated.

Can’t generate “bad press”, right? Because if one does, they and potentially the whole scene is NGMI, HFBP!

Just not for the wrong reasons. It would be silly to say “internet” = “porn”, or “peer to peer” = “piracy”, so for the same reason, “NFT” = “fraud” is just as misdirected, imho.

I’ll agree to not continue with the simil about xenophobia since it’s true that it’s sensitive (though I do still think it does fit), but at least I hope you do accept these other broad generalizations that are mischaracterizing entire technologies that are very much different from that negative purpose someone might want to attribute to them due to how circunstancially “optimal” some specific instances might be for those purposes.

Saying “the association is well-deserved” already is admitting to the mischaracterization.

And frankly, I have not yet seen a single use of NFTs that is not either unnecessary (as in: whatever is being done could be done as well or better without NFTs)

It would be great to find a solution for distributed domain names that was done well or better than what can be done with NFTs, it’s something that p2p distributed networks haven’t managed to solve without blockchain tech.

not calling out crypto/NFT/web3 scams just to preserve the few potentially useful and non-scammy projects would be effectively aiding and abeting the scammers

I’m all for calling any and all scams. Just as long as we separate the technology from the scam. My problem isn’t with this article, but with the reactions in the comments that seem to jump to conclusions and paint things with broad strokes, assuming NFT = fraud.

Those are fair points. But I’m used to seeing so much bad press against NFT from people who blindedly criticise it and assotiate it with any possible bad use of it… to the point that they think “NFT=bad”, and this kind of news paints that picture for anyone who doesn’t know better…

It would be like highlighting in the news every crime perpetrated by someone of color and then complain about “whataboutism” when someone says that white people also commit crimes.

I’m afraid that all this demonization will make it much much harder for any fair and honest project that we ever attempt in the future related to blockchain technology (such as the one you mentioned).

But he didn’t really say that banks are bad, or that the cryptocurrency/NFT/web3 scene isn’t rife with scams.

Scams also existing in fiat currency (his point) doesn’t make fiat bad, in the same way as cryptocurrency/NFT/web3 having good uses doesn’t mean that it cannot also be “rife with scams”.

Are hammers bad because people can use them to smash skulls? imho what we need is measures to prevent, block, minimize or discourage that kind of behavior, not necessarily ban hammers.

Personally, I think the open source and p2p nature of blockchain technology can be a better way to introduce measures of control and protection in a way that is fairer and more transparent than using obscure private ledgers on the hands of more central authorities managed by humans that we have to trust…