Lustigerweise ist gerade Dessalines (der Co-Founder und Hauptentwickler von Lemmy) nach eigener Bezeichnung ein "Marxist-Leninist", und er vertritt die Meinung das es keine neutralen Spaces gibt - daher ist auch lemmy.ml eine der Instanzen bei der es viele linksextreme gibt. Die meisten Instanzen haben einen Fokus auf irgendein Thema, ob Sprache, Memes, LGBT, politische Ansichten, NSFW, oder was auch immer, und überall hast du Hardliner zu diesem Thema, und leider gehäuft auch die "Wenn du nicht mit uns bist, bist du gegen uns" Mentalität. Daher nervt mich persönlich auch dieses pauschale Tankie, oder auch die Verpflichtung sich bei jeder nicht negativen Erwähnung von Russland explizit als Gegner darzustellen oder als russischer Bot bezeichnet zu werden.
Weil Schubladendenken auch hier existiert. Mach dir dein eigenes Bild von den Menschen, und entscheide für dich. Der Begriff Tankie wird auf Lemmy sehr inflationär verwendet, und oft auch einfach nur dumm nachgeplappert.
Manche Communities sind überwiegend links, manche überwiegend rechts. Du kannst auch selbst für dich ganze Instanzen oder einzelne communities oder einzelne Personen blockieren (und damit ausblenden).
Denke auch daran, die meisten Instanzen defederieren von anderen unerwünschten Instanzen - heißt von der Instanz ist die andere Instanz und alle User und Posts davon nicht sichtbar. Kann einem egal sein, oder auch nicht - ist aber etwas das wichtig zu wissen ist.
Whether you like it or not, for the sabotage of public and critical infrastructure.
When the initial suspect was Russia for no reason, people wanted to call in Article 5, now it's fine, because the "good guys" did it?
Exactly. China doesn't really want to openly antagonize Europe either. They do their stuff, Europe does their stuff, and mostly both try not to interfere with each other's business too much. Sure, there is stuff happening that could be counted as offensive, like some tariffs and the evil Chinese hackers and spies, but in general it's a "live and let live" situation. The trade relations are mutually beneficial for both sides, so there's nothing too crazy happening. They won't openly commit into a war in front of European doorstep.
In my opinion, China has no real interest in Russia anymore, after they've shown they're a dud. China's foreign policy is pretty aggressive, as it mostly seems to be the question of "does this benefit us", and if it doesn't they simply won't do it. There aren't really diplomatic ties with China, since they are also often presented as the enemy and the "bad guys" in western media and politics, and it seems like they've embraced it, focused on themselves and did their own shit. As long as there is a cash flow, the relations to Russia are held up, but as soon as it's no longer profitable, which seems more of a "when" and not an "if" question, I don't think that there will be a lot of friendship left over.
It's not "losing to NATO is better than losing to Ukrainians". They already lost their own war against Ukraine. Attacking NATO would be a complete destruction of Russia and of Putin himself. Assuming there would be a war between NATO and Russia, they have nothing left. Russia cannot win. But what would happen after? It's not like Putin would be forced to flee or be killed, replaced by someone "better" and it's back to daily business. They'd potentially establish a buffer zone under NATO control to prevent that from ever happening again, to also keep Belarus in check. Russia would lose access to Crimea and the black sea, and probably St Petersburg and the Baltic Sea. They'd potentially lose most of their remaining allies, except for those who do not care about NATO or EU anyway, like NK, where both would probably keep the same amount of relevance in world politics and economy. And what's worse, while losing to Ukraine is a political loss and the military loss can be propagandized as "if only the NATO wouldn't have supported them I would've won, trust me bro", a war with NATO would be a total, complete, no longer explainable loss. There is no propaganda that can save from that. And given that weird patriotism (victory day and the bullshit parade), there is always the more or less subtle notion of military and ethical supremacy, and this whole idea would break down as well. Losing to NATO will only make it worse in all aspects.
WSJ referencing US intelligence as a source. Still trying anything to hunt the reds, huh.
Putin already lost all face to the outside world, and lost most face in Russia too. Just to put it into relation: WWII had about 8.4 million dead soviet soldiers on the east front, Putin's "military special operation" is at 1.4 million dead and wounded.
Infrastructure, supplies, and military equipment is basically non-existent, in relation to Russia being the aggressor and the size and resources of the country. People are being forced and coerced into the Russian military to keep fresh meat coming. Ukraine got a bunch of expensive western toys and managed to surpass pretty much anything that Russia did somehow.
Attacking a NATO country would be the end of Russia as it exists and would be the end of Putin. It's suicide. There is no face to save, and there is zero chance for any positive outcome for Putin in that.
AI is an umbrella term for three different levels of intelligence:
Weak AI or ANI (Artificial Narrow Intelligence):
This is where we currently are, and where we actually already have been for decades. It's a system that has specialized knowledge in some narrow domain.
That chess program you played against 20 years ago, your cars built in driving security systems, your assistant on your phone (even the old ones pre Gen-AI), and that school project you've coded that consists of 87 hand-rolled if-conditions (which you now know is called a rule engine), and every LLM or LLM-based product is an ANI.
An ANI could compete with a human in its specialized domain, but it's not able to transfer knowledge from one domain to another.
Strong AI or AGI (Artificial General Intelligence):
An AGI does now have specialized knowledge in a single domain, but all human knowledge in all domains, and could perform comparably to a qualified human in anything you task it to do. This is science fiction, no matter how hard OpenAI wants to push its IPO. There isn't even a definitive confirmation that we will ever achieve AGI, it's "only" likely to happen at some point. This point in time would be the so-called singularity.
ASI (Artificial super intelligence):
Basically the same as an AGI, just that it's better in everything. Even more science fiction, even less to say about it. Another purely theoretical construct, unlikely to be ever achieved.
What's important to mention:
Any LLM is by definition only an ANI, and it can never be an AGI. LLMs have a single domain: stochastic text proposals. They have no intelligence, emotion, knowledge or transfer capabilities. An LLM cannot be an AGI - ever. Whether it enables us to create it at some point - maybe.
It seems intelligent and knowledgeable, because modern hardware, clouds and some algorithmic advances enabled a system which is (very simplified) based on the same algorithms like T9-typing on your old nokia, but has an absolutely unimaginable amount of data fed in.
It seems emotional, because it's based on data produced by humans, and we all are emotional beings, and also because it's a system designed to be manipulative. You will only continue your LLM subscription when your "LLM-Buddy" is helpful, not only in providing good answers, but also packaging them in text which creates an emotional response in you when you read it.
Do not 777 everything. Never. Unix file permissions actually work, are pretty simple when you've worked with them, and most importantly are a huge part of your systems security as a whole. Running with broken permissions is a surefire way to get data exfiltrated or to provide an entry point for an attacker. Do not chmod everything, and do not run lax permissions.
Let's say you have a service-A and a service-B running, each with their own user. A produces files into a shared folder, B consumes them.
The proper Unix way of this is:
create a group, and add both users to this group
create the shared folder, change its group to one from above
setup the other ACLs however you need
set inheritance via chmod g+s
point your services to that folder
The chmod g+s is the magic bit you're missing. With this set, any file created will inherit the group ownership from its parent directory - so anything service-A creates will default to the permissions you've set up for the group on the folder, and since service-B is also in that group, files are readable.
This pattern applies to any number of services and in any deployment model.
Yes, but again, why? The people that already read through the propaganda, will not see that as an attack by NATO, but as a result of Putin's actions. The ones who still suck up the "special operation" on day 1613 as of now are retarded and/or indoctrinated beyond saving.
And even if that fixes the propaganda machine - there is no way how Putin could win or even hold up in any military conflict against NATO.
This is a pure marketing stunt, OpenAI saw that it worked with Mythos and wanted to do the same.
Those instructions, according to OpenAI, called for using “complex attack paths” to test how well the AI could exploit a computer system.
[...]
“It went off and did this hack all by itself, as far as we can tell,” said Colin Shea-Blymyer, a cybersecurity research fellow at Georgetown University’s Center for Security and Emerging Technology.
Emphasis mine. So, the frontier model that has been tasked with attacking a system, did what it's been told to, after its safeguards that will prevent you from opening chatgpt and doing the same have been turned off.
OpenAI said the intrusion was caused by a combination of its AI models, including its newly released GPT‑5.6 Sol and an “even more capable” model that is still being tested internally.
Oh my god, an "even more capable" model? Let me buy OpenAI stock immediately. This is such an obvious bait and Antrophic move they're pulling off, it's amazing.
The Americans are not buying the data sources, they have the data sources. Whatever else they are buying is just an addition to what they have. For surveillance purposes location data alone from Google/Apple and/or Meta, Snap, whatever is pure gold, and I'm pretty sure that's not sold.
Even when buying it - it's literally digital gold, and probably just as expensive and you would buy american. So you're spending a metric fuckton of money to buy the dataset and do the same, but worse analysis.
I don't know how it's going in France, but Germany hasn't managed to digitalize anything properly, and even the "flagship" projects are a fucking mess. Even though some of them work (by now), they don't hold up to any serious quality, proven several times by the CCC for example. Germany would be literally the last I'd trust to build a system like this, unfortunately.
And that's not starting about the bureaucracy, potential laws that this would breach, and the backlash for ethical reasons.
no actual sources for data, compared with american companies like Google, Meta, etc.
lack of experts without ethics, who have the skillset required and have no ethical objections building this
no infrastructure of this size
no european frontier models
Or, in less technical, no data to process, no developers to build it, nowhere to run this on, and no technical means to analyze that data.
I can't see how this is not gonna be a gigantic waste of money, that could've been spent on literally anything else that would work better and that Europe would actually benefit from.
Ja klar, ist auch unverschämt und nicht realistisch von mir das man von unseren Politikern fordert auch gute Politik zu machen. Deswegen machen wir lieber Ideologie und Polemik, und bekämpfen Symptome, statt das Problem.
Schon okay, ich mach mit, die Länder fallen, die Russen kommen, AFD blöd.
Ich bin raus, ciao.
Ist diese gute Politik mit uns in diesem Raum? Hab ich da was verpasst? Meinst du den politischen Umgang mit der AFD? Die Brandmauer, die doch keine ist? Die CDU die Grenzkontrollen macht statt der AFD? Schreie nach Verbotsverfahren und mediale Dauerbeschallung mit Nazi- und Putin-Vorwürfen?
Oder meinst du die sonst hoch-erfolgreiche Mittelalter-Politik der zerbrochenen Ampel und danach von dem Bundeskanzler der er geschafft hat weniger Zustimmung als Trump und Erdogan zu bekommen?
Zumindest ist es nicht die Lösung die AfD die Regierungen übernehmen zu lassen. Was glaubst Du denn was passiert wenn die AfD in den Ländern die Macht übernimmt? In SA vielleicht sogar mit absoluter Mehrheit? Irgendwann muss man auch mal den Kampf gegen den Faschismus aufnehmen anstatt den Kopf in den Sand zu stecken.
Gut, statt die Frage zu beantworten gibt's whataboutism, aber sei es auch drum. Ich hab nirgendwo geschrieben oder auch nur angedeutet das es die Lösung ist die AFD übernehmen zu lassen, nicht gegen Faschismus zu kämpfen, oder den Kopf in den Sand zu stecken. Aber man kann den Kampf auf ideologischer Ebene führen, und dann eben mit Verbotsverfahren und sonstigem die Meinungen einfach unterdrücken, und dann den roten Teppich zu einer NPD bzw. Heimat ausrollen. Wenn die dann mit den echten Hardlinern gemeinsam aus der politischen Irrelevanz auftauchen, machen wir einfach noch ein Verbotsverfahren. Wenn das deine Definition von Kampf ist, na dann gute Nacht.
Es sind i.ü jetzt "27.500.000" Menschen (real weniger denn Babys & Co wählen nicht). Letztes Jahr waren es noch weniger. Und im Jahr davor noch weniger. Wie lange willst Du noch warten? Diese Untätigkeit ist komplett verantwortungslos. Das ist im übrigen auch eine super Einstellung. Man will es sich nicht mit "27.500.000" Nazi-Anhängern verscherzen also opfert man lieber die Zukunft der unschuldigen Deutschen, die der AfD ein Dorn im Auge sind.
Asche auf mein Haupt, 60,49 Millionen Wahlberechtigte 2025, also 19,9617 Millionen. Darf ich auf 20 Millionen aufrunden?
Es geht nicht darum sich nicht mit den Nazi-Anhängern zu verscherzen, sondern akut der AFD nicht noch mehr Stimmen zu zuspielen, und mittelfristig der AFD die Stimmen zu nehmen. Und alleine deine sinnlose Polemik von "unschuldigen Deutschen" und "AFD-Wählern" bewirkt genau das Gegenteil.
Auch wenn die Parallele dazu langsam nervt, aber ob jetzt die NSDAP 1933 mit 44.5% oder aktuell die AfD die mit 30-40% unterwegs ist, gut, Gedankenspiel, dann gibt es jetzt das unbürokratischste und schnellste Verbotsverfahren jemals, und die AfD wird verboten (oder damals die NSDAP). Und dann? Dann hast du rund ein Drittel der Bevölkerung, die laut der Argumentation von dem Verbotsverfahren eine "antidemokratische", "verfassungsfeindliche", "radikale", "Nazi" und rechte Partei unterstützen, aus welchen Gründen auch immer. Überzeugung, Frust, Verdrossenheit, Protest, ist auch erstmal egal. Aber mit einem Verbot der AFD verschwindet die Anhängerschaft nicht, aber du hast rund ein Drittel der Bevölkerung auf die mindestens einige der Eigenschaften der AFD zutreffen. Das sind übrigens rund 27.500.000 Menschen.
I'm not assuming he's not competent, and I've looked him up - he's by no means incompetent. But he himself said he's not qualified to write tests for that. If you cannot write tests for whatever you're doing, you shouldn't be doing that. Someone with his knowledge, or at least the knowledge he should have given his CV, should know that. In this specific case he is incompetent, because what he's doing is simply wrong on every level.
You don't need to be an expert on what you're doing to use LLMs efficiently. You can also have solid prompts and ideas to use a LLM to cancel out your personal lack of knowledge in a specific domain. In any case, expecting LLMs to produce correct output when you're actively guiding it to do something wrong is simply stupid.
Any claim of actual intelligence in a LLM is simply not true. Never been, never will be. Artificial intelligence is an umbrella term for ANI, AGI and ASI, artificial narrow, general and super intelligence respectively. A narrow intelligence is not even close to human intelligence, and is hyper-specialized in a single task. All and any LLMs are and always will be ANIs, and their hyper-specialization is basically a stochastic word (well, token) completion on steroids. An AGI is mostly defined as "close to" or "approaching" human intelligence, as in general knowledge and transfer of it into unrelated fields.
This, reasoning and capabilities will help you nothing when you guide it in the wrong direction. You need to keep in mind the absolutely mind blowing amount of money involved around LLMs. The bubble is too big to fail. Any LLM is a product, and their first and foremost goal is to make you use it, so you pay for it - therefore the primary directive of the AI is to give you what you ordered, to glaze you, and to be your best, obedient buddy. You want a video of the bug, of course! Here you have a video of how that bug looks like - stochastically that's the answer to the prompt.
it was a UI interaction bug for which I'm not even really qualified to write a test for
What the hell are they doing in bugfixing an UI bug, when they are "not qualified" to write a test for it. Anyhow, not competent enough for the codebase you're working on - check.
so I asked Codex to bisect between dates X and Y to find the commit that introduced this bug.
So, instead of asking the LLM to e.g. create a proper reproduction as a test case, asking it to bisect, which the author claimed that I wasn't possible, for some reason. So, also adding can't bisect on his own, and can't prompt properly, check and check.
[Waffling about hallucinations]
I then asked it to show me by making a video with the full developer end-to-end stack in the normal browser test environment.
[...]
The video made it look like Codex had reproduced the bug, but it was an artificial browser environment that was designed to create a fake repro, not the real environment.
So, the author realized it hallucinates. The author asks for video proof (instead of a fucking test, again). The author is surprised it generated him a video of exactly what they wanted to see, only creating it in a different way than they wanted to.
This reads like "I have close to zero clue what I'm doing, I also don't really know how to achieve what I want properly, and now I'm making a salty blog post that my magical text microwave didn't fix my half-assed description of a problem". Like, honestly, what the hell was the expectation here?
Lustigerweise ist gerade Dessalines (der Co-Founder und Hauptentwickler von Lemmy) nach eigener Bezeichnung ein "Marxist-Leninist", und er vertritt die Meinung das es keine neutralen Spaces gibt - daher ist auch lemmy.ml eine der Instanzen bei der es viele linksextreme gibt. Die meisten Instanzen haben einen Fokus auf irgendein Thema, ob Sprache, Memes, LGBT, politische Ansichten, NSFW, oder was auch immer, und überall hast du Hardliner zu diesem Thema, und leider gehäuft auch die "Wenn du nicht mit uns bist, bist du gegen uns" Mentalität. Daher nervt mich persönlich auch dieses pauschale Tankie, oder auch die Verpflichtung sich bei jeder nicht negativen Erwähnung von Russland explizit als Gegner darzustellen oder als russischer Bot bezeichnet zu werden.
Weil Schubladendenken auch hier existiert. Mach dir dein eigenes Bild von den Menschen, und entscheide für dich. Der Begriff Tankie wird auf Lemmy sehr inflationär verwendet, und oft auch einfach nur dumm nachgeplappert.
Manche Communities sind überwiegend links, manche überwiegend rechts. Du kannst auch selbst für dich ganze Instanzen oder einzelne communities oder einzelne Personen blockieren (und damit ausblenden). Denke auch daran, die meisten Instanzen defederieren von anderen unerwünschten Instanzen - heißt von der Instanz ist die andere Instanz und alle User und Posts davon nicht sichtbar. Kann einem egal sein, oder auch nicht - ist aber etwas das wichtig zu wissen ist.
Whether you like it or not, for the sabotage of public and critical infrastructure. When the initial suspect was Russia for no reason, people wanted to call in Article 5, now it's fine, because the "good guys" did it?
Justice for all.
Exactly. China doesn't really want to openly antagonize Europe either. They do their stuff, Europe does their stuff, and mostly both try not to interfere with each other's business too much. Sure, there is stuff happening that could be counted as offensive, like some tariffs and the evil Chinese hackers and spies, but in general it's a "live and let live" situation. The trade relations are mutually beneficial for both sides, so there's nothing too crazy happening. They won't openly commit into a war in front of European doorstep.
In my opinion, China has no real interest in Russia anymore, after they've shown they're a dud. China's foreign policy is pretty aggressive, as it mostly seems to be the question of "does this benefit us", and if it doesn't they simply won't do it. There aren't really diplomatic ties with China, since they are also often presented as the enemy and the "bad guys" in western media and politics, and it seems like they've embraced it, focused on themselves and did their own shit. As long as there is a cash flow, the relations to Russia are held up, but as soon as it's no longer profitable, which seems more of a "when" and not an "if" question, I don't think that there will be a lot of friendship left over.
It's not "losing to NATO is better than losing to Ukrainians". They already lost their own war against Ukraine. Attacking NATO would be a complete destruction of Russia and of Putin himself. Assuming there would be a war between NATO and Russia, they have nothing left. Russia cannot win. But what would happen after? It's not like Putin would be forced to flee or be killed, replaced by someone "better" and it's back to daily business. They'd potentially establish a buffer zone under NATO control to prevent that from ever happening again, to also keep Belarus in check. Russia would lose access to Crimea and the black sea, and probably St Petersburg and the Baltic Sea. They'd potentially lose most of their remaining allies, except for those who do not care about NATO or EU anyway, like NK, where both would probably keep the same amount of relevance in world politics and economy. And what's worse, while losing to Ukraine is a political loss and the military loss can be propagandized as "if only the NATO wouldn't have supported them I would've won, trust me bro", a war with NATO would be a total, complete, no longer explainable loss. There is no propaganda that can save from that. And given that weird patriotism (victory day and the bullshit parade), there is always the more or less subtle notion of military and ethical supremacy, and this whole idea would break down as well. Losing to NATO will only make it worse in all aspects.
WSJ referencing US intelligence as a source. Still trying anything to hunt the reds, huh.
Putin already lost all face to the outside world, and lost most face in Russia too. Just to put it into relation: WWII had about 8.4 million dead soviet soldiers on the east front, Putin's "military special operation" is at 1.4 million dead and wounded. Infrastructure, supplies, and military equipment is basically non-existent, in relation to Russia being the aggressor and the size and resources of the country. People are being forced and coerced into the Russian military to keep fresh meat coming. Ukraine got a bunch of expensive western toys and managed to surpass pretty much anything that Russia did somehow.
Attacking a NATO country would be the end of Russia as it exists and would be the end of Putin. It's suicide. There is no face to save, and there is zero chance for any positive outcome for Putin in that.
To expand on your post:
AI is an umbrella term for three different levels of intelligence:
Weak AI or ANI (Artificial Narrow Intelligence): This is where we currently are, and where we actually already have been for decades. It's a system that has specialized knowledge in some narrow domain. That chess program you played against 20 years ago, your cars built in driving security systems, your assistant on your phone (even the old ones pre Gen-AI), and that school project you've coded that consists of 87 hand-rolled if-conditions (which you now know is called a rule engine), and every LLM or LLM-based product is an ANI. An ANI could compete with a human in its specialized domain, but it's not able to transfer knowledge from one domain to another.
Strong AI or AGI (Artificial General Intelligence): An AGI does now have specialized knowledge in a single domain, but all human knowledge in all domains, and could perform comparably to a qualified human in anything you task it to do. This is science fiction, no matter how hard OpenAI wants to push its IPO. There isn't even a definitive confirmation that we will ever achieve AGI, it's "only" likely to happen at some point. This point in time would be the so-called singularity.
ASI (Artificial super intelligence): Basically the same as an AGI, just that it's better in everything. Even more science fiction, even less to say about it. Another purely theoretical construct, unlikely to be ever achieved.
What's important to mention: Any LLM is by definition only an ANI, and it can never be an AGI. LLMs have a single domain: stochastic text proposals. They have no intelligence, emotion, knowledge or transfer capabilities. An LLM cannot be an AGI - ever. Whether it enables us to create it at some point - maybe. It seems intelligent and knowledgeable, because modern hardware, clouds and some algorithmic advances enabled a system which is (very simplified) based on the same algorithms like T9-typing on your old nokia, but has an absolutely unimaginable amount of data fed in. It seems emotional, because it's based on data produced by humans, and we all are emotional beings, and also because it's a system designed to be manipulative. You will only continue your LLM subscription when your "LLM-Buddy" is helpful, not only in providing good answers, but also packaging them in text which creates an emotional response in you when you read it.
Do not 777 everything. Never. Unix file permissions actually work, are pretty simple when you've worked with them, and most importantly are a huge part of your systems security as a whole. Running with broken permissions is a surefire way to get data exfiltrated or to provide an entry point for an attacker. Do not chmod everything, and do not run lax permissions.
Let's say you have a service-A and a service-B running, each with their own user. A produces files into a shared folder, B consumes them. The proper Unix way of this is:
The chmod g+s is the magic bit you're missing. With this set, any file created will inherit the group ownership from its parent directory - so anything service-A creates will default to the permissions you've set up for the group on the folder, and since service-B is also in that group, files are readable.
This pattern applies to any number of services and in any deployment model.
Yes, but again, why? The people that already read through the propaganda, will not see that as an attack by NATO, but as a result of Putin's actions. The ones who still suck up the "special operation" on day 1613 as of now are retarded and/or indoctrinated beyond saving. And even if that fixes the propaganda machine - there is no way how Putin could win or even hold up in any military conflict against NATO.
This is a pure marketing stunt, OpenAI saw that it worked with Mythos and wanted to do the same.
Emphasis mine. So, the frontier model that has been tasked with attacking a system, did what it's been told to, after its safeguards that will prevent you from opening chatgpt and doing the same have been turned off.
Oh my god, an "even more capable" model? Let me buy OpenAI stock immediately. This is such an obvious bait and Antrophic move they're pulling off, it's amazing.
The Americans are not buying the data sources, they have the data sources. Whatever else they are buying is just an addition to what they have. For surveillance purposes location data alone from Google/Apple and/or Meta, Snap, whatever is pure gold, and I'm pretty sure that's not sold.
Even when buying it - it's literally digital gold, and probably just as expensive and you would buy american. So you're spending a metric fuckton of money to buy the dataset and do the same, but worse analysis.
I don't know how it's going in France, but Germany hasn't managed to digitalize anything properly, and even the "flagship" projects are a fucking mess. Even though some of them work (by now), they don't hold up to any serious quality, proven several times by the CCC for example. Germany would be literally the last I'd trust to build a system like this, unfortunately.
And that's not starting about the bureaucracy, potential laws that this would breach, and the backlash for ethical reasons.
So, they want to develop a rival, huh?
Or, in less technical, no data to process, no developers to build it, nowhere to run this on, and no technical means to analyze that data.
I can't see how this is not gonna be a gigantic waste of money, that could've been spent on literally anything else that would work better and that Europe would actually benefit from.
"Who watches the watchers?", that problem is far older than both me, you and every LLM.
Ja klar, ist auch unverschämt und nicht realistisch von mir das man von unseren Politikern fordert auch gute Politik zu machen. Deswegen machen wir lieber Ideologie und Polemik, und bekämpfen Symptome, statt das Problem. Schon okay, ich mach mit, die Länder fallen, die Russen kommen, AFD blöd. Ich bin raus, ciao.
Ist diese gute Politik mit uns in diesem Raum? Hab ich da was verpasst? Meinst du den politischen Umgang mit der AFD? Die Brandmauer, die doch keine ist? Die CDU die Grenzkontrollen macht statt der AFD? Schreie nach Verbotsverfahren und mediale Dauerbeschallung mit Nazi- und Putin-Vorwürfen? Oder meinst du die sonst hoch-erfolgreiche Mittelalter-Politik der zerbrochenen Ampel und danach von dem Bundeskanzler der er geschafft hat weniger Zustimmung als Trump und Erdogan zu bekommen?
Gut, statt die Frage zu beantworten gibt's whataboutism, aber sei es auch drum. Ich hab nirgendwo geschrieben oder auch nur angedeutet das es die Lösung ist die AFD übernehmen zu lassen, nicht gegen Faschismus zu kämpfen, oder den Kopf in den Sand zu stecken. Aber man kann den Kampf auf ideologischer Ebene führen, und dann eben mit Verbotsverfahren und sonstigem die Meinungen einfach unterdrücken, und dann den roten Teppich zu einer NPD bzw. Heimat ausrollen. Wenn die dann mit den echten Hardlinern gemeinsam aus der politischen Irrelevanz auftauchen, machen wir einfach noch ein Verbotsverfahren. Wenn das deine Definition von Kampf ist, na dann gute Nacht.
Asche auf mein Haupt, 60,49 Millionen Wahlberechtigte 2025, also 19,9617 Millionen. Darf ich auf 20 Millionen aufrunden? Es geht nicht darum sich nicht mit den Nazi-Anhängern zu verscherzen, sondern akut der AFD nicht noch mehr Stimmen zu zuspielen, und mittelfristig der AFD die Stimmen zu nehmen. Und alleine deine sinnlose Polemik von "unschuldigen Deutschen" und "AFD-Wählern" bewirkt genau das Gegenteil.
Auch wenn die Parallele dazu langsam nervt, aber ob jetzt die NSDAP 1933 mit 44.5% oder aktuell die AfD die mit 30-40% unterwegs ist, gut, Gedankenspiel, dann gibt es jetzt das unbürokratischste und schnellste Verbotsverfahren jemals, und die AfD wird verboten (oder damals die NSDAP). Und dann? Dann hast du rund ein Drittel der Bevölkerung, die laut der Argumentation von dem Verbotsverfahren eine "antidemokratische", "verfassungsfeindliche", "radikale", "Nazi" und rechte Partei unterstützen, aus welchen Gründen auch immer. Überzeugung, Frust, Verdrossenheit, Protest, ist auch erstmal egal. Aber mit einem Verbot der AFD verschwindet die Anhängerschaft nicht, aber du hast rund ein Drittel der Bevölkerung auf die mindestens einige der Eigenschaften der AFD zutreffen. Das sind übrigens rund 27.500.000 Menschen.
Was ist dann die Lösung für dieses Pulverfass?
I'm not assuming he's not competent, and I've looked him up - he's by no means incompetent. But he himself said he's not qualified to write tests for that. If you cannot write tests for whatever you're doing, you shouldn't be doing that. Someone with his knowledge, or at least the knowledge he should have given his CV, should know that. In this specific case he is incompetent, because what he's doing is simply wrong on every level.
You don't need to be an expert on what you're doing to use LLMs efficiently. You can also have solid prompts and ideas to use a LLM to cancel out your personal lack of knowledge in a specific domain. In any case, expecting LLMs to produce correct output when you're actively guiding it to do something wrong is simply stupid.
Any claim of actual intelligence in a LLM is simply not true. Never been, never will be. Artificial intelligence is an umbrella term for ANI, AGI and ASI, artificial narrow, general and super intelligence respectively. A narrow intelligence is not even close to human intelligence, and is hyper-specialized in a single task. All and any LLMs are and always will be ANIs, and their hyper-specialization is basically a stochastic word (well, token) completion on steroids. An AGI is mostly defined as "close to" or "approaching" human intelligence, as in general knowledge and transfer of it into unrelated fields.
This, reasoning and capabilities will help you nothing when you guide it in the wrong direction. You need to keep in mind the absolutely mind blowing amount of money involved around LLMs. The bubble is too big to fail. Any LLM is a product, and their first and foremost goal is to make you use it, so you pay for it - therefore the primary directive of the AI is to give you what you ordered, to glaze you, and to be your best, obedient buddy. You want a video of the bug, of course! Here you have a video of how that bug looks like - stochastically that's the answer to the prompt.
Codebase with no tests, check.
What the hell are they doing in bugfixing an UI bug, when they are "not qualified" to write a test for it. Anyhow, not competent enough for the codebase you're working on - check.
So, instead of asking the LLM to e.g. create a proper reproduction as a test case, asking it to bisect, which the author claimed that I wasn't possible, for some reason. So, also adding can't bisect on his own, and can't prompt properly, check and check.
So, the author realized it hallucinates. The author asks for video proof (instead of a fucking test, again). The author is surprised it generated him a video of exactly what they wanted to see, only creating it in a different way than they wanted to.
This reads like "I have close to zero clue what I'm doing, I also don't really know how to achieve what I want properly, and now I'm making a salty blog post that my magical text microwave didn't fix my half-assed description of a problem". Like, honestly, what the hell was the expectation here?
Don't worry, he probably didn't feel a thing at that point already.