What is the point of wasting tokens having bots roleplay social media posts? We already know they can do that. Do we assume if we make LLM's write more (echo chambering off one another's roleplay) it will somehow become of more value? Almost certainly not. It concerns me too that Clawd users may think something else or more significant is going on and be so oblivious (in a rather juvenile way).
While I do think this is fun and interesting, I agree that it is going to burn through a ton of tokens and there's a very serious risk that non-technical, and even some technical people probably, will interpret this as more than it is.
This is exactly the kind of thing llms are good at doing. Generating text based on other text.
And in this case, it's exactly the kind of text these models were trained on, so of course they're going to be very convincing.
Still, it is interesting to see where this technology is leading us and what fun side projects pop up along the way.
Can anyone define "emergent" without throwing it around emptily? What is emerging here? I'm seeing higher-layer LLM human writing mimicry. Without a specific task or goal, they all collapse into vague discussions of nature of AI without any new insight. It reads like high school sci-fi.
That's one way to look at it, as just the next iteration of subredditsimulator.
The qualitatively new step leading to emergent behavior will be when the agents start being able to interact with the real world through some interface and update their behavior based on real world feedback.
Think of an autonomous, distributed worm that updates its knowledge base of exploit techniques based on trial and error and based on information it discovers as it propagates.
It might start doing things that no human security researcher had foreseen, and that doesn't require great leaps of the imagination based on today's tech.
That's when you close the evolutionary loop.
I think this isn't quite that yet, but it points in that direction.
The objective is given via the initial prompt, as they loop onto each other and amplify their memories the objective dynamically grows and emerges into something else.
We are an organism born out of a molecule with an objective to self replicate with random mutation
I'm not sure arguing in favor of alphabet soup naming is any better. At least we ended up with semantic versioning, because originally it had also been just an expression of marketing and creativity. I don't understand even slightly why he blames Google in the article. He also forgot to propose what he believes Google should have been named. Search Engine? AWCSS? And the fact that he'd be fine with Viper and Cobra if they had backronyms points to the ridiculousness of the whole article. I'm genuinely most fascinated by how he accomplished writing that much text without the nonsense of his position dawning on him.
Isn't NotebookLM already exactly web and file context (a "ContextChat")?
Edit: I assume it is basically a similar product, but your differentiators are mainly the customer getting to choose their model, and you getting to write your own context adding ergonomics (like adding links from a Sitemap)?
Exactly, similar plus tools to import and manage projects context fast (like GitHub private repos and sitemaps url), multiple ai model and pay per use like using APIs
Are you talking about the Replica line by Maison Margiela, because those are obviously not trying to be bootlegs, they replicate smells from nature. However you're right, that fragrances are one of the most ripped off original works in existence, with machines to even analyze the composition in creating duplicates. Those master perfumers that make unique works of art through their studies and talents have it worse than Nike shoes.
Isn't that concept of "luck" as strange as considering us "lucky" for currently being? Non-existent things aren't in a lobby waiting to win a lottery. There was no choice; we came to exist, then considered ourselves. Whatever conditions create, does not imply luck for what is created.
TrustArc is a company used by major brands that utilizes dark patterns to FAKE opt-out time for GDRP compliance. Major companies employ lies. It will hold your browser captive for 2 minutes in hopes that you cancel or accept all. If you don't, it shows "We are processing the requested change to your cookie preferences. This may take up to a few minutes to process.". Not even incompetence could make this an honest process.
The way GDPR works, I think the companies using TrustArc are more likely to be held liable than TrustArc itself. Unless TrustArc makes the unforced error of getting itself classified as a Data Controller.
> Unless TrustArc makes the unforced error of getting itself classified as a Data Controller.
Knowing how some scams and tax evasion schemes work I wouldn't be surprised if they could just set up a separate company that ends up with all the liability without any of the assets and just have that declare bankruptcy the moment the first fines hit. Rinse/Repeat as often as necessary.
I get this on docker.com without my script blocker.
Essential only -> Processing please wait (but you can cancel)
Customize -> Trying to trick me into allowing more, then processing as above
Accept -> Instant success
Took some screenshots since this is ridiculous (I may just not be used to the modern web since I aggressively block scripts): https://imgur.com/a/fJB0aHz
My favorite part is having to pull a bar up to decrease my consent-level.
Based in SV with ~370 employees on LinkedIn and over 17K followers. this above comment needs to be posted verbatim into one of their most recent posts with a mention that GDPR makes its EU customers liable and an additional link to the FTC for public comments. It would make them scramble I think.
LinkedIn is underrated as a platform to call out brands, it's where many spend a lot of their money on PR / image.
I don't understand why most companies even bother. If they aren't going to be compliant in how they handle getting permission, why even pretend?
I think one reason is that we have reached a tipping point where website owners now view these banners as a signal of a "legitimate" website, without bothering to look into actual compliance.
Without enforcement, these things shouldn't exist. They are just a nuisance to everyone
Well, given that some sites employ hundreds of trackers and other barely-above-malware stuff, it does make sense for these requests to take ages.
Unfortunately, many people simply click on the "accept all" button and don't care about their privacy that much.
The idea of GDPR was that consumers would be hesitant upon seeing the massive amount of third parties that use your data and demand change from the providers, turns out people don't care / providers rather let privacy-oriented customers suffer than to take a hit on their advertising profits.
> Well, given that some sites employ hundreds of trackers and other barely-above-malware stuff, it does make sense for these requests to take ages.
Last time I checked, there were no requests being made client-side in the 1-2 minutes it took to cancel. It was pretty much the same number of requests for both accepting and denying. Maybe they changed it since it's too blatant.
Also, since it should be opt-in, then accepting should obviously take longer.
If it's the TrustArc Ads Compliance Manager, it makes a call to all the ad networks requesting the network's opt out cookie. The opt out cookie prevents the user from being tracked by that ad network across all sites. Cookie banner opt outs usually only prevent tracking from the site you are one.
Unlike GDPR, which uses a website as the gate for all cookies, the ad industry also has self-regulatory programs. Participation in these programs require that a website allow a user to opt out of all ad networks present on their site. TrustArc built a module to do that: https://preferences-mgr.truste.com/.
If you run the tool there, it will make a call to the ad networks listed. Of course if you're running an ad blocker, the call will get blocked and it will look like the tool doesn't do anything.
The problem is you're being presented a mandatory popup for what appears to be used as GDPR compliance but realize that it isn't because real ones are instant. This is fake GDPR in the sense that it isn't (compliant); it's other things, as you note. If the purpose is to facilitate GDPR, that opt-out time shouldn't be conflated (the ad stuff shouldn't be bundled), given that GDPR appears to have a requisite "It shall be as easy to withdraw as to give consent.". Is that a correct interpretation? You're suddenly notified you can't operate for minutes (unless you opt-in), which is definitely dark, and unnecessary (unless you want to achieve the action they're doing, but you didn't; you just need GDPR). Sitting captive for minutes is not a modern day web experience anyone finds acceptable, that's why Google is so focused on empowering loading speed inspection/resolution. The experience made me wonder if they use users who don't opt out (I almost gave up just to get out of being locked out) as a selling point. There wasn't, that I could find, an instant GDPR-compliant way around this obstruction. Why would any company care for this experience? If they wanted to be polite and do extra action (this ad network regulations thing), they have the tech to do it asynchronously/unobtrusively, right?
The most interesting thing to note is that MySpace was personal. The smallest facet of what MySpace was, the 50px tall little "Bulletin" feature, was the place where you talk to yourself at everyone. This, however, is what the entire internet has become, the social paradigm shift, thanks to Facebook's sterile data output container superseding it. Facebook is the MySpace "Bulletin" blown to full size, and that's what we've come to believe the web and networking are. The only saving grace for Twitter is that it's where you follow people you DON'T know, and they tend to be industry experts.
How did you recreate the interface though? Most of it was behind the log-in screen which wasn't captured by archive services. Are you trying to scrap together old screenshots? Even with that, I feel like not all UI screens are represented.
I'll share that I had an encounter that seemed unnatural/impossible and I wasn't alone at the time. It also was reported in our local paper the following day. I contentiously (regardless of the experience) have never and do not believe in aliens.
Would you mind to share what your impossible encounter was like? Did the paper report something else (like the Daily Mail reporting on a helicopter as the cause)?
reply