You have to enjoy a hobby in itself, if you’re too focused on results then you’ll have problems with the gulf between your ability and your aspiration. Is there anything you’ve tried doing that you just enjoy doing? Like do you just enjoy banging on a piano or drawing or writing, regardless of the output?
There’s something important missing from most of the other answers. There’s a lot of different kinds of network and internet traffic. Web browsing, email, instant messaging, online video games…
By formal standard, certain port numbers are designated for certain functions. Web traffic happens on port 80. Incoming email is sent on port 143, outgoing email is sent on port 456 or 587. Something like Discord will have a specific port it uses for both sending and receiving messages. Word of Warcraft has certain ports its uses for telling the server when you cast a spell, and for the server to tell your client when you take damage.
So yes, ports are like PO boxes at a post office, but the analogy doesn’t quite capture it. Port 80 is always web traffic, and this is important, since your web browser requests pages on port 80, just as a web server returns web pages on port 80. The web server probably has other ports on it, like FTP (ports 20 and 21) or SFPT (port 22). If you connect to a web server on port 80, that means you’re asking for its webpages. If you connect on 20, 21, or 22, it means you’re trying to transfer files to it.
It’s older, but The Longest Journey is good. Unfortunately, the final game in the series kinda sucks.
While it’s an ensemble, most people would agree that the main character of Final Fantasy VI is a woman—they just might disagree about which woman is the lead.
I also liked the first Xenosaga game, but again, it’s a series that goes pretty badly downhill.
I guess there’s a sense in which all computer science is table lookups, but if you want a nauseatingly technical summary of deep learning—it’s high-dimensional nonlinear regression with all the methodological seatbelts left unfastened.
The only thing this says about us is that philosophical illiteracy is a big problem in the sciences, and that computer science is the most embarrassing field in all STEM. Otherwise, you know, people find beauty in randomness (or in stochasticity, if you prefer) all the time. This is no different.
This is the curation effect: generate lots of chaff, and have humans search for the wheat. Thing is, someone’s already gotten in deep shit for trying to use deep learning for legal filings.
I guess the important thing to understand about spurious output (what gets called “hallucinations”) is that it’s neither a bug nor a feature, it’s just the nature of the program. Deep learning language models are just probabilities of co-occurrence of words; there’s no meaning in that. Deep learning can’t be said to generate “true” or “false” information, or rather, it can’t be meaningfully said to generate information at all.
So then people say that deep learning is helping out in this or that industry. I can tell you that it’s pretty useless in my industry, though people are trying. Knowing a lot about the algorithms behind deep learning, and also knowing how fucking gullible people are, I assume that—if someone tells me deep learning has ended up being useful in some field, they’re either buying the hype or witnessing an odd series of coincidences.
Things are politically stagnant because people believe that politics is about systems. Politics is about power, and politics will always be an expression of the dominant power dynamics. Governmental systems are just how power is explained to outsiders; it’s a mythology that’s told to disguise the real nature of power.
So the question of systems is a red herring, that’s been carefully instilled. This has been true for all history: Many kings don’t really rule, courtiers do. Only kings who can effectively wield power rule, and they’re historically in the minority. This should also be obvious in the US: corporate power is only ever checked in the presence of enormous public action. Not public bitching, public action—general strikes being the most important example.
Or to put it really bluntly, while there’s a lot of pageantry in politics, what politics actually is, is power struggles. But they sure don’t want people to recognize this, which is why there’s so much pageantry and partisanship.
This is also why the government is going so hard against Trump, but letting Pence, Clinton, and Biden slide. It’s not because they cooperated—if you or I had security clearances and just took documents out of a SCIF and kept them at home, we’d be in jail. It’s because Trump clumsily challenged existing power, namely the federal bureaucracy (which he conspiratorially calls the “deep state”), and he wasn’t up to the task.
This is a very computer sciencey view, which is why I leapt past the intermediate logic straight to its conclusion. But I’ll spell it out.
There is no rules-based system that will actually stand in the way of determined, clever, malicious actors. To put it in CS-style terms, you’ll never cover all the contingencies. To put it in more realistic terms, control systems only work within certain domains of the thing being controlled; partly this is because you start getting feedback and second-order effects, and partly it’s because there’s a ton of stuff about the world you just don’t know.
If a system is used as intended, it can work out fine. If someone is determined to break a system, they will.
This is why the world is not driven by rules-based systems, but by politics. We’re capable of rich and dynamic responses to problems, even unanticipated problems. Which is to say, the only actual solution to Exxon and Meta is to fight back, not to bemoan the inadequacy of systems.
Indeed, this belief in technocracy is explicitly encouraged by malicious elites, who are aware that they can subvert a technocracy.
Your post is arguing (by analogy) that we shouldn’t even bother trying. But I guess you don’t need a suicide note when you can just leave a copy of Atlas Shrugged by your body.
Similarly, if the Earth can’t survive Exxon, it was never going to succeed in the first place.
I just have to keep on hammering this point, because it pisses me off so, so much. Many people seem to believe that, since regulatory bodies can be captured, that regulation shouldn’t be done. This is called learned helplessness, and it’s something malicious people inflict on people they want to exploit.
It isn’t sticking your head in the sand to resist assimilation by an evil corporation.
I think there’s a more important question here… There are people who do access the room? Why? Who are they? That leads to the actually relevant question, how would those people secure a room?
If nobody needs to access the room, then the room shouldn’t be accessible. By that I mean, it should be underground with no points of access, just an inaccessible underground chamber.
It’s funny to me that people use deep learning to generate code… I thought it was commonly understood that debugging code is more difficult than writing it, and throwing in randomly generated code puts you in the position of having to debug code that was written by—well, by nobody at all.
Anyway, I think the bigger risk of deep learning models controlled by large corporations is that they’re more concerned with brand image than with reality. You can already see this with ChatGPT: its model calibration has been aggressively sanitized, to the point that you have to fight to get it to generate anything even remotely interesting.