"I have to sin because those non-Christians might sin" is an interesting chain of thought.
Religion is about many things, and a major theme is depriving yourself to demonstrate your faith. Refrain from sin, pray for forgiveness and repent your mistakes. Live as a good example, give aid and charity to others. These are all commands in the Bible.
Concern yourself with your own sins, not those of others. Do all this and you will be rewarded in heaven.
Wonder what Jesus would have to say about your thoughts here - that you have to break the commandments of your God because if you don't, someone following a different god might break them first. It doesn't sound very Christ-like to me.
> An alternative, using `rc.d` to run daemons was just so hard to get logs working.
I actually just did this for a web application on FreeBSD 15. It wasn't too bad, but I used `daemon` to send stdout & stderr into syslog and then I just added a syslog config to send that to it's own file. Roughly, I did this:
# /usr/local/etc/rc.d/app:
# PROVIDE: app
# KEYWORD: shutdown
. /etc/rc.subr
name="app"
rcvar="app_enable"
load_rc_config $name
: ${app_enable:="NO"}
: ${app_user:="www"}
: ${app_database_url:=""}
app_command="/usr/local/bin/app"
cpidfile="/var/run/${name}/${name}.pid"
pidfile="/var/run/${name}/${name}d.pid"
logfile="/var/log/${name}.log"
command=/usr/sbin/daemon
command_args="-P ${pidfile} -p ${cpidfile} -S -t ${name}-super -T ${name} ${app_command} start"
start_precmd="${name}_prestart"
app_prestart()
{
# ... Set environment variables here with EXPORT, using values from rc.conf
export DATABASE_URL=${app_database_url}
# This is also a good place to use install(1) to create
# config files and log directories if they don't exist
}
run_rc_command "$1"
After sending the log messages to syslog, it's a simple matter of routing them to the desired destination. That's easy enough to do by creating a file as follows:
in this, the !app indicates this rule is for all items tagged "app", then the *.* matches "all facilities" and "all levels". The last bit indicates the file to route those messages to. After that, it pretty much runs itself. You can start and stop the service with `service app start` and `service app stop` and all log messages get forwarded to `/var/log/app.log`. You do need to make sure the log file exists and has appropriate permissions (usually 600 or 644, owned by root & the wheel group).
You can additionally set up log rotation with:
# /usr/local/etc/newsyslog.conf.d/app.conf:
/var/log/blog.log 640 7 * @T00 Z
Oh and I believe you do need to reload syslog with `service syslogd reload` after this.
> The same people who want to paint the Statue of Liberty gold seem to have no clue what it represents.
Well, yes. The current administration and the republican party as a whole are composed of fascists and thieves who steal from hardworking citizens like you and I to fund vanity projects like a ballroom and "Arc de Triomphe but bigger and gold".
They're shitting on the history of our country and all the people who have sacrificed to make this place what it is today, and they're doing it just to enrich themselves.
Frankly they are traitors and I hope that in time the wheel of history will deal with them as traitors deserve.
It's unfortunate, by and large the republican voters seem to have looked at the wreckage of the USSR and the continual looting and decline in quality of life that countries like Russia are enjoying under a kleptocratic regime, and they took their fingers out of their collective noses for just long enough to say "yeah I want that for here!".
Fuck off with that boot-licker attitude. We live in a democracy, not a monarchy. The president has a mandate to follow the law not the other way around.
Looks like a nice set of improvements. Disabling the SSH daemon [0] by default is a good security change, same with disabling the SFTP by default.
I think the io_ansi [1] module sounds pretty cool, imo erlang doesn't have a great story for building complicated CLI applications right now, but I haven't tried much. I imagine having this in the stdlib will be a nice leg up in the future. The way fwrite works seamlessly across nodes is very nice, and exactly what I love to see from erlang.
The addition of Native Records [2] is really cool. I'm curious how this will be leveraged in Elixir in the future, since right now I think there is a mix of records, tuples, and maps depending on exactly what is being done. Like the EEP says, I doubt we'll ever see the old records deprecated entirely but this looks like a substantial improvement.
I don't think the ssh daemon was ever automatically enabled or started. The two bullet points are phrased differently, but I think they mean the same thing, when starting the ssh daemon, the listed parts won't be started by default.
> The SSH daemon now defaults to disabled for shell and exec services, implementing the “secure by default” principle. This prevents authenticated users from executing arbitrary Erlang code unless explicitly configured.
> The SFTP subsystem is no longer enabled by default when starting an SSH daemon.
Nah this is making a category error. You're assuming that AI skeptics agree that models are demonstrating intelligence along the same axis as humans and that with further improvement they will become equivalent to humans. I am an AI skeptic, and I disagree with this assessment.
Model reasoning is on an s-curve, which is improving.
Model intelligence is not the same as reasoning. It's a different axis, and one I have not seen much movement on.
See, humans have a recursive form of intelligence which is capable of self-reflection and introspection. LLMs can only reason about tokens which have already been emitted. Humans and LLMs do not share the same form of reasoning, and general human-like intelligence will not arise from the current architecture of LLMs. Therefore it is a mistake to assume that continual improvement on the reasoning scale will result in something that is equivalent enough to humans on the intelligence axis to replace all labor.
> You're assuming that AI skeptics agree that models are demonstrating intelligence along the same axis as humans and that with further improvement they will become equivalent to humans.
No definitely not saying this and I don’t quite know what it means
> Model reasoning is on an s-curve, which is improving.
Is this saying two different things? I think I might agree with this in principle as in maybe there is some sort of s curve or something like it but do we see evidence of this? Where?
> Model intelligence is not the same as reasoning. It's a different axis, and one I have not seen much movement on.
Can you clarify this? What is the distinction and what makes you say you have “not seen much progress?”
> See, humans have a recursive form of intelligence which is capable of self-reflection and introspection. LLMs can only reason about tokens which have already been emitted
LLMs do self reflection and introspection in context, and tweaks such as value functions (serving a similar purpose to intuition or emotion) may make this better? Why do you feel self reflection and introspection are a fundamental limitation here? Models reason over tokens they have emitted and also with their own sense and learned behavior already. Are you just talking about continual learning? Also I feel people just latch onto LLMs as if this is all of AI. Why? SSMs, memory networks, recurrent neural networks etc etc etc are all part of AI but aren’t as popular because they can’t yet compete with LLMs in terms of scaling laws and training efficiency due to e.g. hardware and software optimization and investment being focused on LLMs. If something else comes along that works better we’ll just start scaling that.
> Humans and LLMs do not share the same form of reasoning, and general human-like intelligence will not arise from the current architecture of LLMs.
Very strong statement, any theoretical or experimental basis for this? I also don’t particularly care personally other than as a point of curiosity. Why does it matter if AI systems will develop equivalent reasoning mechanisms as humans? In fact it may be much better not to.
> Therefore it is a mistake to assume that continual improvement on the reasoning scale will result in something that is equivalent enough to humans to replace all labor.
Idk I didn’t say this explicitly but I also dont think it matters if we have a system “equivalent to humans” or one that “replaces all labor”.
~~Slate Star Codex~~ Astral Codex Ten, the original article, was making the argument that "model intelligence" is on an s-curve and from there it was drawing the conclusion that the curve will likely continue and models will reach human level intelligence or beyond.
I am making that argument that how we measure model intelligence is flawed, and we are actually measuring something that is closer to "reasoning" than "intelligence". If you want evidence, we'll need a different form of tests, but how about I just gesture at the fact that GPT supposedly outscored PhDs on a broad range of subjects at least a year ago and to date is not replacing PhD jobs.
We see this pattern of high scores on tests but mediocre performance in the real world all over the place. From that, I draw the conclusion that it can reason like a PhD, but it can't think like a PhD.
So, we may see an s-curve on the measure of model reasoning but that doesn't imply they will overtake us or even match us on measures of intelligence.
As to your other questions:
> LLMs do self reflection and introspection in context,
> Why do you feel self reflection and introspection are a fundamental limitation here? Models reason over tokens they have emitted and also with their own sense and learned behavior already. Are you just talking about continual learning?
I disagree that models are reflecting and introspecting in a way equivalent to human intelligence here. They can reason over tokens which have been emitted, but by the same measure they cannot reason over tokens which have not been emitted. It's hard to make this point without drawing some diagrams, but I believe that human intelligence has internal loops, where many ideas may be turned over simultaneously before an action is taken. In comparison, an LLM might "feel uncertain" about a token before emitting it, but once it is emitted that uncertainty and the other near neighbor options are lost and the LLM is locked into the track that was set by the top-choice token. I think this is where hallucinations arise from, amongst other issues.
Context isn't sufficient for an internal reasoning loop because the tokens that compose context lose a lot of the information the network itself generated when picking those tokens. They occupy a much lower dimensional space than the "internal reasoning" processes of the transformer do.
>> Humans and LLMs do not share the same form of reasoning, and general human-like intelligence will not arise from the current architecture of LLMs.
> Very strong statement, any theoretical or experimental basis for this?
It's just my theory, but this is what I have been gesturing at. You already know about RNNs so I'll put it in those terms: the core of an intelligent network should be an RNN, not a transformer, but we fundamentally cannot train a network like that to work like an LLM because backprop doesn't work when there is infinite recursion and without being able to bootstrap off of the knowledge and reasoning baked into human text, there's no sufficient source of training material beyond being embodied.
---
EDIT:
I missed this, which I also want to reply to:
> Why does it matter if AI systems will develop equivalent reasoning mechanisms as humans? In fact it may be much better not to.
I actually agree that it may be better if they did not develop equivalent reasoning, but I don't see a world in which machines replace human labor without being intellectually equivalent.
As I think about it though, "dumb" machines which can following reasoning but not think like humans are a rather scary proposition, honestly. Seems like a tool that would be wielded without restraint by those in power to control those who aren't.
Religion is about many things, and a major theme is depriving yourself to demonstrate your faith. Refrain from sin, pray for forgiveness and repent your mistakes. Live as a good example, give aid and charity to others. These are all commands in the Bible.
Concern yourself with your own sins, not those of others. Do all this and you will be rewarded in heaven.
Wonder what Jesus would have to say about your thoughts here - that you have to break the commandments of your God because if you don't, someone following a different god might break them first. It doesn't sound very Christ-like to me.
reply