Only if everyone runs it. The attacker just needs to find one vulnerable system; the defender must protect them all. Obviously given that the tool exists, the defender must run it, but it's not at all clear to me that the existence of the tool different all favours defence.
(Thanks to the maintainers of yt-dlp and of whisper-cpp, and to OpenAI for training Whisper. It makes this kind of task actually bearable.)
There are no actual claims about Dyson spheres in the video? It's literally just "Dyson published a paper, I claim without evidence that Dyson intended it as a joke, people who believe it are gullible fools, therefore it's impossible, also I found someone else's blog post who doesn't know what they're talking about, also desiring the expansion of humanity is evil and eugenics"? Can you summarise an actual argument from the video?
Nah, it's totally Claude. No human writes the bulleted list in https://github.com/RokoMijic/MercurialDyson/blob/4f6cb3c0b5b..., or "The thermal management problem that naively prohibits rapid disassembly is resolved by three key insights…". The whole thing reeks of Claude, but chapters 12 and 13 are probably the clearest slam-dunks.
If you want to compare styles, https://github.com/Smaug123/gospel/blob/764996d20e11674f9221... is similarly written almost entirely by Opus (4.5 rather than 4.6) with some strong LessWrong-o-sphere background prompting and the instruction to be terse. The styles are practically identical.
> DI containers mean the call site doesn't tell you what's called. Instead: pass values in, get values out.
That one is obviously LLM.
Before I left the comment, I reviewed some of this user's commit history to about a decade back, and they genuinely write like this. Though I think this is the first long-form content I've seen from them.
This is essentially how Mathematica does it: the sugar `Foo[x,#,z]&` is semantically the same as `Function[{y}, Foo[x,y,z]]`. The `&` syntax essentially controls what hole belongs where.
… I don't know what your incident reports look like, but if there's anywhere it's normal to optimise for communicative clarity rather than social wheel-greasing, it's an incident report!
How do you figure that the author is “developmentally challenged”? It sounds to me like they are able to handle their insecurities in a more mature and emotionally balanced way than most others.
And for you, of course, that's true! Because you are the sort of being who two-boxes, and this fact is visible to the predictor. Other types of being can do better.
This is the best reply in this thread, as it irrefutably demonstrates this so-called paradox is a religious question and has nothing to do with logic or probability.
The question is do you believe in an omniscient god or not.
The fact that they dress up god as a supercomputer and that attracts all sorts of math and tech nerds is hilarious.
Only one passing mention of martial arts so far? Consider Brazilian jiu-jitsu, which is certainly not safe but is very grounding. After spending all your waking hours at a computer, grappling presses your soul back into your body. It's a very different kind of socialising, mutually-exhausted extremely-physical and in my experience very wholesome, even if the injury risk is higher than nearly every other hobby. (And you guarantee getting every airborne infection. I got two serious colds and the bona-fide flu this winter; still worth it.)
> Consider Brazilian jiu-jitsu, which is certainly not safe but is very grounding
What :D? I would say BJJ is an exceptionally safe martial art in that you can spar at 90-95% and not get hurt at all. Muay Thai or boxing sparring gives you regular bruises in comparison. At least that’s my experience.
Sure, for a martial art it's pretty safe - still in a different league from (say) bouldering or lifting, though!
And in solo sports, you can almost completely set your own safety budget, whereas in martial arts there's a large irreducible lump of danger from "the other person lacks the control to do something safely". The only other person I know in person who does BJJ who I didn't meet at BJJ is a brown belt, and just got a four-month leg injury during a routine rolling session; I myself am only just over a five-month chest injury that was probably from someone very heavy simply throwing himself down on top of me when I didn't react in time (obviously he shouldn't have done that, but I can't control what other people do).
Also how on earth are you managing not to get bruises at BJJ?! My legs are covered in them after pretty much every session just from sustained pressure.
Wow okay. Maybe my club is “gentle”, I’ve never had a single injury from BJJ.
I’ve had some from lifting weights.
I see your point about solo sports.
> Also how on earth are you managing not to get bruises at BJJ
Oh I get “finger marks” on the arms for sure, but never got a black eye or a nosebleed from BJJ. I got that quite regularly from boxing and muay thai/MMA training.
Fair enough, I got three black eyes within my first three months! The injury situation definitely gets better as you improve and when you train with more skilled people.
I think rock-climbing fills a similar void for me. It's social, physical, and mental, and has a progression to it where I feel like I've gained something after every session. Plus you can take your skills outside and enjoy nature and travel with friends
It's not obvious that human language is or should be the largest amount of training data. It's much easier to generate training data from computers than from humans, and having more training data is very valuable. In paticular, for example, one could imagine creating a vast number of debugging problems, with logs and associated command outputs, and training on them.
reply