#Future of Computer System and Validation

[pharmaconnections01]

The Future of Computer System and Validation (CSV) in Pharma

Discover the evolving landscape of Computer System Validation (CSV) in the pharmaceutical industry. With advancements in AI, blockchain, and cloud computing, CSV is revolutionizing efficiency and compliance. Embrace the future of pharmaceutical manufacturing and regulation with cutting-edge technologies and a risk-based approach. Explore how innovation and regulatory compliance converge to shape the future of healthcare delivery.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Cleantech has an enshittification problem

On July 14, I'm giving the closing keynote for the fifteenth HACKERS ON PLANET EARTH, in QUEENS, NY. Happy Bastille Day! On July 20, I'm appearing in CHICAGO at Exile in Bookville.

EVs won't save the planet. Ultimately, the material bill for billions of individual vehicles and the unavoidable geometry of more cars-more traffic-more roads-greater distances-more cars dictate that the future of our cities and planet requires public transit – lots of it.

But no matter how much public transit we install, there's always going to be some personal vehicles on the road, and not just bikes, ebikes and scooters. Between deliveries, accessibility, and stubbornly low-density regions, there's going to be a lot of cars, vans and trucks on the road for the foreseeable future, and these should be electric.

Beyond that irreducible minimum of personal vehicles, there's the fact that individuals can't install their own public transit system; in places that lack the political will or means to create working transit, EVs are a way for people to significantly reduce their personal emissions.

In policy circles, EV adoption is treated as a logistical and financial issue, so governments have focused on making EVs affordable and increasing the density of charging stations. As an EV owner, I can affirm that affordability and logistics were important concerns when we were shopping for a car.

But there's a third EV problem that is almost entirely off policy radar: enshittification.

An EV is a rolling computer in a fancy case with a squishy person inside of it. While this can sound scary, there are lots of cool implications for this. For example, your EV could download your local power company's tariff schedule and preferentially charge itself when the rates are lowest; they could also coordinate with the utility to reduce charging when loads are peaking. You can start them with your phone. Your repair technician can run extensive remote diagnostics on them and help you solve many problems from the road. New features can be delivered over the air.

That's just for starters, but there's so much more in the future. After all, the signal virtue of a digital computer is its flexibility. The only computer we know how to make is the Turing complete, universal, Von Neumann machine, which can run every valid program. If a feature is computationally tractable – from automated parallel parking to advanced collision prevention – it can run on a car.

The problem is that this digital flexibility presents a moral hazard to EV manufacturers. EVs are designed to make any kind of unauthorized, owner-selected modification into an IP rights violation ("IP" in this case is "any law that lets me control the conduct of my customers or competitors"):

https://locusmag.com/2020/09/cory-doctorow-ip/

EVs are also designed so that the manufacturer can unilaterally exert control over them or alter their operation. EVs – even more than conventional vehicles – are designed to be remotely killswitched in order to help manufacturers and dealers pressure people into paying their car notes on time:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/07/24/rent-to-pwn/#kitt-is-a-demon

Manufacturers can reach into your car and change how much of your battery you can access:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/07/28/edison-not-tesla/#demon-haunted-world

They can lock your car and have it send its location to a repo man, then greet him by blinking its lights, honking its horn, and pulling out of its parking space:

https://tiremeetsroad.com/2021/03/18/tesla-allegedly-remotely-unlocks-model-3-owners-car-uses-smart-summon-to-help-repo-agent/

And of course, they can detect when you've asked independent mechanic to service your car and then punish you by degrading its functionality:

https://www.repairerdrivennews.com/2024/06/26/two-of-eight-claims-in-tesla-anti-trust-lawsuit-will-move-forward/

This is "twiddling" – unilaterally and irreversibly altering the functionality of a product or service, secure in the knowledge that IP law will prevent anyone from twiddling back by restoring the gadget to a preferred configuration:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/02/19/twiddler/

The thing is, for an EV, twiddling is the best case scenario. As bad as it is for the company that made your EV to change how it works whenever they feel like picking your pocket, that's infinitely preferable to the manufacturer going bankrupt and bricking your car.

That's what just happened to owners of Fisker EVs, cars that cost $40-70k. Cars are long-term purchases. An EV should last 12-20 years, or even longer if you pay to swap the battery pack. Fisker was founded in 2016 and shipped its first Ocean SUV in 2023. The company is now bankrupt:

https://insideevs.com/news/723669/fisker-inc-bankruptcy-chapter-11-official/

Fisker called its vehicles "software-based cars" and they weren't kidding. Without continuous software updates and server access, those Fisker Ocean SUVs are turning into bricks. What's more, the company designed the car from the ground up to make any kind of independent service and support into a felony, by wrapping the whole thing in overlapping layers of IP. That means that no one can step in with a module that jailbreaks the Fisker and drops in an alternative firmware that will keep the fleet rolling.

This is the third EV risk – not just finance, not just charger infrastructure, but the possibility that any whizzy, cool new EV company will go bust and brick your $70k cleantech investment, irreversibly transforming your car into 5,500 lb worth of e-waste.

This confers a huge advantage onto the big automakers like VW, Kia, Ford, etc. Tesla gets a pass, too, because it achieved critical mass before people started to wise up to the risk of twiddling and bricking. If you're making a serious investment in a product you expect to use for 20 years, are you really gonna buy it from a two-year old startup with six months' capital in the bank?

The incumbency advantage here means that the big automakers won't have any reason to sink a lot of money into R&D, because they won't have to worry about hungry startups with cool new ideas eating their lunches. They can maintain the cozy cartel that has seen cars stagnate for decades, with the majority of "innovation" taking the form of shitty, extractive and ill-starred ideas like touchscreen controls and an accelerator pedal that you have to rent by the month:

https://www.theverge.com/2022/11/23/23474969/mercedes-car-subscription-faster-acceleration-feature-price

Put that way, it's clear that this isn't an EV problem, it's a cleantech problem. Cleantech has all the problems of EVs: it requires a large capital expenditure, it will be "smart," and it is expected to last for decades. That's rooftop solar, heat-pumps, smart thermostat sensor arrays, and home storage batteries.

And just as with EVs, policymakers have focused on infrastructure and affordability without paying any attention to the enshittification risks. Your rooftop solar will likely be controlled via a Solaredge box – a terrible technology that stops working if it can't reach the internet for a protracted period (that's right, your home solar stops working if the grid fails!).

I found this out the hard way during the covid lockdowns, when Solaredge terminated its 3G cellular contract and notified me that I would have to replace the modem in my system or it would stop working. This was at the height of the supply-chain crisis and there was a long waiting list for any replacement modems, with wifi cards (that used your home internet rather than a cellular connection) completely sold out for most of a year.

There are good reasons to connect rooftop solar arrays to the internet – it's not just so that Solaredge can enshittify my service. Solar arrays that coordinate with the grid can make it much easier and safer to manage a grid that was designed for centralized power production and is being retrofitted for distributed generation, one roof at a time.

But when the imperatives of extraction and efficiency go to war, extraction always wins. After all, the Solaredge system is already in place and solar installers are largely ignorant of, and indifferent to, the reasons that a homeowner might want to directly control and monitor their system via local controls that don't roundtrip through the cloud.

Somewhere in the hindbrain of any prospective solar purchaser is the experience with bricked and enshittified "smart" gadgets, and the knowledge that anything they buy from a cool startup with lots of great ideas for improving production, monitoring, and/or costs poses the risk of having your 20 year investment bricked after just a few years – and, thanks to the extractive imperative, no one will be able to step in and restore your ex-solar array to good working order.

I make the majority of my living from books, which means that my pay is very "lumpy" – I get large sums when I publish a book and very little in between. For many years, I've used these payments to make big purchases, rather than financing them over long periods where I can't predict my income. We've used my book payments to put in solar, then an induction stove, then a battery. We used one to buy out the lease on our EV. And just a month ago, we used the money from my upcoming Enshittification book to put in a heat pump (with enough left over to pay for a pair of long-overdue cataract surgeries, scheduled for the fall).

When we started shopping for heat pumps, it was clear that this was a very exciting sector. First of all, heat pumps are kind of magic, so efficient and effective it's almost surreal. But beyond the basic tech – which has been around since the late 1940s – there is a vast ferment of cool digital features coming from exciting and innovative startups.

By nature, I'm the kid of person who likes these digital features. I started out as a computer programmer, and while I haven't written production code since the previous millennium, I've been in and around the tech industry for my whole adult life. But when it came time to buy a heat-pump – an investment that I expected to last for 20 years or more – there was no way I was going to buy one of these cool new digitally enhanced pumps, no matter how much the reviewers loved them. Sure, they'd work well, but it's precisely because I'm so knowledgeable about high tech that I could see that they would fail very, very badly.

You may think EVs are bullshit, and they are – though there will always be room for some personal vehicles, and it's better for people in transit deserts to drive EVs than gas-guzzlers. You may think rooftop solar is a dead-end and be all-in on utility scale solar (I think we need both, especially given the grid-disrupting extreme climate events on our horizon). But there's still a wide range of cleantech – induction tops, heat pumps, smart thermostats – that are capital intensive, have a long duty cycle, and have good reasons to be digitized and networked.

Take home storage batteries: your utility can push its rate card to your battery every time they change their prices, and your battery can use that information to decide when to let your house tap into the grid, and when to switch over to powering your home with the solar you've stored up during the day. This is a very old and proven pattern in tech: the old Fidonet BBS network used a version of this, with each BBS timing its calls to other nodes to coincide with the cheapest long-distance rates, so that messages for distant systems could be passed on:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FidoNet

Cleantech is a very dynamic sector, even if its triumphs are largely unheralded. There's a quiet revolution underway in generation, storage and transmission of renewable power, and a complimentary revolution in power-consumption in vehicles and homes:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/06/12/s-curve/#anything-that-cant-go-on-forever-eventually-stops

But cleantech is too important to leave to the incumbents, who are addicted to enshittification and planned obsolescence. These giant, financialized firms lack the discipline and culture to make products that have the features – and cost savings – to make them appealing to the very wide range of buyers who must transition as soon as possible, for the sake of the very planet.

It's not enough for our policymakers to focus on financing and infrastructure barriers to cleantech adoption. We also need a policy-level response to enshittification.

Ideally, every cleantech device would be designed so that it was impossible to enshittify – which would also make it impossible to brick:

Based on free software (best), or with source code escrowed with a trustee who must release the code if the company enters administration (distant second-best);

All patents in a royalty-free patent-pool (best); or in a trust that will release them into a royalty-free pool if the company enters administration (distant second-best);

No parts-pairing or other DRM permitted (best); or with parts-pairing utilities available to all parties on a reasonable and non-discriminatory basis (distant second-best);

All diagnostic and error codes in the public domain, with all codes in the clear within the device (best); or with decoding utilities available on demand to all comers on a reasonable and non-discriminatory basis (distant second-best).

There's an obvious business objection to this: it will reduce investment in innovative cleantech because investors will perceive these restrictions as limits on the expected profits of their portfolio companies. It's true: these measures are designed to prevent rent-extraction and other enshittificatory practices by cleantech companies, and to the extent that investors are counting on enshittification rents, this might prevent them from investing.

But that has to be balanced against the way that a general prohibition on enshittificatory practices will inspire consumer confidence in innovative and novel cleantech products, because buyers will know that their investments will be protected over the whole expected lifespan of the product, even if the startup goes bust (nearly every startup goes bust). These measures mean that a company with a cool product will have a much larger customer-base to sell to. Those additional sales more than offset the loss of expected revenue from cheating and screwing your customers by twiddling them to death.

There's also an obvious legal objection to this: creating these policies will require a huge amount of action from Congress and the executive branch, a whole whack of new rules and laws to make them happen, and each will attract court-challenges.

That's also true, though it shouldn't stop us from trying to get legal reforms. As a matter of public policy, it's terrible and fucked up that companies can enshittify the things we buy and leave us with no remedy.

However, we don't have to wait for legal reform to make this work. We can take a shortcut with procurement – the things governments buy with public money. The feds, the states and localities buy a lot of cleantech: for public facilities, for public housing, for public use. Prudent public policy dictates that governments should refuse to buy any tech unless it is designed to be enshittification-resistant.

This is an old and honorable tradition in policymaking. Lincoln insisted that the rifles he bought for the Union Army come with interoperable tooling and ammo, for obvious reasons. No one wants to be the Commander in Chief who shows up on the battlefield and says, "Sorry, boys, war's postponed, our sole supplier decided to stop making ammunition."

By creating a market for enshittification-proof cleantech, governments can ensure that the public always has the option of buying an EV that can't be bricked even if the maker goes bust, a heat-pump whose digital features can be replaced or maintained by a third party of your choosing, a solar controller that coordinates with the grid in ways that serve their owners – not the manufacturers' shareholders.

We're going to have to change a lot to survive the coming years. Sure, there's a lot of scary ways that things can go wrong, but there's plenty about our world that should change, and plenty of ways those changes could be for the better. It's not enough for policymakers to focus on ensuring that we can afford to buy whatever badly thought-through, extractive tech the biggest companies want to foist on us – we also need a focus on making cleantech fit for purpose, truly smart, reliable and resilient.

Support me this summer on the Clarion Write-A-Thon and help raise money for the Clarion Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers' Workshop!

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/06/26/unplanned-obsolescence/#better-micetraps

Image: 臺灣古寫真上色 (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Raid_on_Kagi_City_1945.jpg

Grendelkhan (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ground_mounted_solar_panels.gk.jpg

CC BY-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en

[pallisia]

batch asks

i'm falling behind on all of the nice messages i've received since ch2 released. thank you so much, everyone. here are a bunch of responses on the shorter side (might be vague spoilers)

Anonymous asked:

Just finished ch2, cheering for ysme's woman wrongs and loic's ambiguously passive aggressive subdom my favorite parts are whenever loic closes his eyes and feels like he's summoning the emotion of that one ishowspeed expression

thank you. i don't know what that last bit means but okay

Anonymous asked:

(smiles serenely) absolutely sickening moment at the end. i dont regret signing the contract. great chapter

thank you. the contract remains in effect

Anonymous asked:

I don't think I can put my feelings of appreciation as elegantly as other, nor in pure excitement, but I can at least add to the pile of nice things: thank you for chapter 2 of soulsov! I greatly enjoyed it!

i don't need elegance, just good old-fashioned validation. thank you very much for the kind words.

@galaxywitch9 asked:

I've been looking forward to reading Chapter 2 today since you announced the release date; I finished reading it a little while ago and really enjoyed it. I love Ysme and Loic's new party member with all my heart, as well as the upsetting plot developments surrounding her. I don't know if he'll come up again later, but I loved Samson too; nervous big guys are a personal favorite of  mine 😌 Holding out hope for the possibility of some good things happening for Fel in the future 🥲

thank you very much. i'm glad you like samson. fel got a cool toy so she's probably fine.

Anonymous asked:

Tutu really quickly became an "if anything happens to her I will kill everyone in the room and then myself" character

well. don't do that

Anonymous asked:

Congratulations on the release! I unfortunately can’t read chapter 2 until my computer is repaired, but I’ve already heard so many good things that the wait is even harder. I can’t wait to see Loic and Ysme again.

thank you very much. i hope you enjoy when you get the chance.

@scottytiti asked:

wow you were Not fucking kidding when you made us sign the contract. but i'm a woman of my word. i'm under legal obligation. (defeatedly, voice quivering) i have no choice but to stan.......!!

you literally have to stan even if you cry

Anonymous asked:

does it count as too much of a spoilerish ask to say every soulsov got the transgender allegory

now let's hear your langlais headcanon

@tetrissyndromes asked:

THANK YOU !! 💌💌💌

thank you!!

@rainwvalker asked:

I just finished chapter 2 and... god, it's really good. I'll be chewing on it for a while. The prose and dialogue is delicious, and the layering of themes (that I'm only beginning to grasp) between different characters and their stories is really artfully done. Love, devotion, shame, and control... it's all really so juicy. And the ending..... well, I signed the contract :) Thank you for your work in making soulsov real! I will eagerly await future chapters.

thank you for the thoughtful praise. i hope you enjoy the rest of the story too.

@erismourn asked:

read ch2 last night (immediately after watching severance which was probably inadvisable lol) and it made me feel so Bad but in such a compelling way. it was so wonderful. i'm really loving the world you've created and the magic system and the lore. ysme makes me feel violent (positive). excellent work, so excited to see what comes next!!!

sometimes you just want a story where bad things happen. i hope soulsov makes you smile too, though. thank you for reading.

Anonymous asked:

Want to say I played chapter 2 and I love it! I like seeing another glimpse on how the setting has affected the characters! The more small shards i see about the world leaves me on edge and I can't wait to see what's in store!

thank you! there's a decent amount of background worldbuilding info that wasn't touched on in ch2...

@chefwhatnot asked:

I have finished chapter 2 of soulsov, and i only have one question: what the fuck (Excellent work! Writing and art and text pacing were all fantastic! I feel even more invested in this story than i already was!)

smiling nicely. thank you

Anonymous asked:

(smiling through the tears) chapter 2 was incredible. thank you so much

yeah! this is the stuff. thank you for reading.

Anonymous asked:

sat on the prelude for a year (forgive me) but read it and chapter two today. I am smitten, as I knew I would be. thank u for supporting trans wrongs.

thanks for taking the time.

@podplease asked:

Girlfriend and I are having a wonderful time reading through chapter 2. All the characters are so alive? I dunno if that makes sense I just really like the way you write dialogue

thanks a lot. dialogue is what i feel most confident writing, so i'm always happy to hear that.

Anonymous asked:

hi i'm sure you've gotten dozens of messages like this but i just wanted to say soulsov chapter 2 is really really good!! i don't have anything super insightful to say, i'm just a huge fan of the writing and the characters and the world and everything. chapter 1 already had me very interested but now i am on the edge of my seat! i can't wait to watch the evil woman do more bad things to people who don't deserve it, it's my favorite hobby

thank you very much. who says loic and tutu don't deserve it. maybe they have bad vibes

Anonymous asked:

Loic pranking Ysme knowing full well that he's at her mercy was so good! THANK YOU

one must imagine sisyphus getting a little silly with it in a subdued power struggle sort of way

Anonymous asked:

hey that BIG invocation this chapter made me burst into ugly tears! oh my god. oh my god loic. oh my god spoiler character. i wish i could hug them both!

thank you very much 😊

Anonymous asked:

My god, you actually implemented a fishing minigame.

"fishing minigames" are passe, i know, but the fishing scene was planned for years and years and i couldn't resist having a little giggle. it won't happen again officer

Anonymous asked:

is sammy single

please hold on to this thought

[not-terezi-pyrope]

The push for legal prohibitions against AI training on public data via copyright law feels like it's going to have one of two outcomes, and I don't like either of them.

The law enforces a legal distinction between mechanically indistinguishable actions performed by a computer system and by the human brain, enshrining a double standard where what is doing a thing matters more than what the thing is.

Subjective art attributes like "style" and "influence", currently seen as so nebulous that fair use need not even be applied to them, become acceptable points of contention under copyright law, such that human artists can get sued for perceived infractions (e.g. you saw this artwork and "stole" the style of it in your work that looks similar).

Both of these concentrate power to corporations who already hold large corpuses of licensed artwork. It makes me so uncomfortable. Are we heading for a scenario where only corporations can meaningfully monetize "authorized" art, where they can prove that they have ownership of either the training data for an AI model or any nebulous artistic influences that could otherwise be targeted for suppression?

It's not like the latter case is even enforceable but it could be used to intimidate. Honestly, I think art style copyright would be so obviously absurd that the "codified double standard between human and machine actions" option is more likely to be what becomes law, but even that is... very bad, it ensures that AI systems can only be deployed by those with the most money and influence, in service of that money and influence.

I honestly thought that fair use and similar legal concepts were strong enough to withstand the push for this sort of regulation, but this has become such a hot button issue that I'm not sure. We are maybe sleepwalking into some very foreseeably unpleasant consequences here due to artist anxiety which, while valid in especially an economic sense, hasn't actually been thought through, is often not really validated by the reality of the situation or checked against the consequences of being asked for.

Artists want their work posted publicly by untouchable by what they see as some sort of infecting monster, perverting what they made with their own two hands, and that emotion is so strong that it feels like it's going to push us into an objectively worse regulatory future for AI and/or art than anything we have now.

😬

[mariacallous]

The anonymous image board 4chan has survived years of controversy. It weathered user and advertiser boycotts as well as damning accusations that it incubated hate speech that may have fueled mass shootings. Users have convened on 4chan to plan hacks like DDoS attacks, and conspiracy theories that festered on 4chan even reportedly inspired the January 6 insurrection at the United States Capitol. On Monday night and Tuesday, though, the platform faced its latest test after a series of outages led to speculation that the site had been hacked.

The core feature 4chan provides is public anonymity to post text and images, but the platform itself does collect information about users, such as their IP addresses. As a result, a breach of the website could represent a significant exposure of data that was intended to be private.

“4chan is an anonymous message board that enables often offensive and hateful content. The content leaked, if genuine, would remove some of the anonymity from 4chan administrators, moderators, and janitors,” says Ian Gray, director of analysis and research at the security firm Flashpoint. The image board’s billing as an “anonymous” platform may have given users a “false sense of security,” Gray says. “Some users may have registered their email addresses years ago when they were less aware or concerned about their operational security.”

Reports about the apparent hack began circulating after a previously banned board on 4chan briefly appeared online and the site was defaced with a message saying, “U GOT HACKED XD.” Subsequently, an online account on a rival forum known as Soyjak.party posted screenshots allegedly showing 4chan’s backend systems, plus a list of alleged 4chan administrator and moderator usernames, with associated email addresses. Following this post of 4chan administrator email addresses, Soyjak.party users started posting alleged doxes, including photos and personal information, of the accounts included in the leak.

WIRED has not been able to confirm whether the data is legitimate. A press email address associated with 4chan as well as two alleged administrator emails from the leaked data did not immediately respond to WIRED’s requests for comment on the hack and its validity. One of the site’s moderators said they believed the hack and leaks were real, according to a report by TechCrunch.

Rumors also started circulating on Tuesday that the breach is the result of 4chan running legacy, unpatched software that exposed the platform to attack. After a breach a decade ago, 4chan founder Christopher Poole, known online as “moot,” wrote in a blog post, “[We] have spent—and will continue to spend—dozens of hours poring over our software and systems to help mitigate and prevent future intrusions. We’re sorry it happened, and will do our best to ensure it doesn’t happen again.”

Emiliano De Cristofaro, a computer science and engineering professor at UC Riverside, who has researched the impact of 4chan on the web, says the ramifications could be large if the hack is confirmed.

“It seems true that 4chan hasn't been properly maintained and patched for years, which might indicate that a hack would have definitely been a possibility,” De Cristofaro says. “There might be some ‘high profile’ users exposed as moderators—traditionally, 4chan users hate them, so they might be targeted. It might be hard or at least painfully slow and costly for 4chan to recover from this, so we might really see the end of 4chan as we know it.”

Initial reports posted on Soyjak.party referencing a 4chan hack appeared to say that Soyjak.party members may have been involved in the attack. One post claimed that a hacker had been in 4chan’s systems “for over a year” and exposed personal information allegedly linked to 4chan users and administrators. And multiple screenshots posted on Soyjak.party appear to show someone accessing 4chan’s internal systems. These include images of someone with administrator access to a 4chan backend database, stats about users on various sections of 4chan, a page showing deleted posts and the IP addresses they were made from, as well as other internal documentation. Some reports also claim that hackers stole 4chan’s source code.

In recent years, 4chan has increasingly been on the radar of US government officials. The website has reportedly been kept online due in part to investment by a Japanese company. In June 2023, WIRED reported on internal 4chan documents that showed how the site’s policies shaped the highly toxic nature of the platform—including how moderators explicitly allow racism. In most cases, the documents showed, calls for violence on 4chan are not met with user bans.

“If the data is legitimate, information on members and posting could be useful for law enforcement investigations,” Flashpoint’s Gray says. “4chan has been around since at least 2003, which is extremely notable for any online service. Aside from the offensive and often extremist content, a lot of internet culture has originated from 4chan. If this is a death knell for 4chan, other services will likely fill its place. However, the effect of 4chan on the internet cannot be overstated.”

[ixnai]

The allure of speed in technology development is a siren’s call that has led many innovators astray. “Move fast and break things” is a mantra that has driven the tech industry for years, but when applied to artificial intelligence, it becomes a perilous gamble. The rapid iteration and deployment of AI systems without thorough vetting can lead to catastrophic consequences, akin to releasing a flawed algorithm into the wild without a safety net.

AI systems, by their very nature, are complex and opaque. They operate on layers of neural networks that mimic the human brain’s synaptic connections, yet they lack the innate understanding and ethical reasoning that guide human decision-making. The haste to deploy AI without comprehensive testing is akin to launching a spacecraft without ensuring the integrity of its navigation systems. The potential for error is not just probable; it is inevitable.

The pitfalls of AI are numerous and multifaceted. Bias in training data can lead to discriminatory outcomes, while lack of transparency in decision-making processes can result in unaccountable systems. These issues are compounded by the “black box” nature of many AI models, where even the developers cannot fully explain how inputs are transformed into outputs. This opacity is not merely a technical challenge but an ethical one, as it obscures accountability and undermines trust.

To avoid these pitfalls, a paradigm shift is necessary. The development of AI must prioritize robustness over speed, with a focus on rigorous testing and validation. This involves not only technical assessments but also ethical evaluations, ensuring that AI systems align with societal values and norms. Techniques such as adversarial testing, where AI models are subjected to challenging scenarios to identify weaknesses, are crucial. Additionally, the implementation of explainable AI (XAI) can demystify the decision-making processes, providing clarity and accountability.

Moreover, interdisciplinary collaboration is essential. AI development should not be confined to the realm of computer scientists and engineers. Ethicists, sociologists, and legal experts must be integral to the process, providing diverse perspectives that can foresee and mitigate potential harms. This collaborative approach ensures that AI systems are not only technically sound but also socially responsible.

In conclusion, the reckless pursuit of speed in AI development is a dangerous path that risks unleashing untested and potentially harmful technologies. By prioritizing thorough testing, ethical considerations, and interdisciplinary collaboration, we can harness the power of AI responsibly. The future of AI should not be about moving fast and breaking things, but about moving thoughtfully and building trust.

[sophieinwonderland]

I feel like what im gonna say about AI is a different t total position and may sound """bad""" when I didn't mean but I believe AI is making more. "dumber'? Because if you give something that literally does it FOR you. You are not gonna learn and (some or a lot) of people use it in high school, college, and academia in general I think it leads to an Idiocary-like situation at some point in the future. Im being fair here and I've only seen the environmental stuff but here we go. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-023-01787-8 https://slejournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40561-024-00316-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-023-01787-8 From the second study IT stated this "found a concerning trend where users exhibit an over-reliance on AI dialogue systems, often accepting their generated outputs, AI hallucination, without validation. This overdependence is exacerbated by cognitive biases where judgments deviate from rationality and heuristics or the use of mental shortcuts, leading to uncritical acceptance of AI-generated information." This mean that most people just take on its face. Which you could argue for "oh its their fault if they fell it without fact-checking" the study FOCUSES on STUDENTS. So are you just saying that people who are just started life and (maybe) naive and didn't think to fact-check what the AI says because after all. It fed on a lot of data it probably will be 100% correct (when its not) (yes I admit I USE Grammarly however it shouldn't devalue my argument and in all things considered very minor and doesn't really do a negative impact) Heres a fat table (disorganized tho from the study) https://slejournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40561-024-00316-7/tables/2

(EFL learners are just people who are learning English as their second language.) https://slejournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40561-024-00316-7/tables/2 From the same study it also said

"Duhaylungsod and Chavez (2023) investigated 16 college students’ interactions with AI dialogue systems for academic tasks. The results indicated that AI dialogue systems efficiently decreased the time dedicated to research and information retrieval."" as well from the review "The study reports the potential reduction in critical thinking skills when depending on AI (75%), the risk of excessive reliance on technology (73%), and the prevalence of misinformation and inaccuracies (70%). Furthermore, there is substantial apprehension regarding the ethical implications of unintentional plagiarism (69%) and algorithmic biases (40%)." 75 PER CENT. PERCENT

Yes! The brain drain in academics is something I think should be a huge concern!

Given how many high schoolers have used AI to cheat on essays and other work, it might be a good idea to just keep essay writing and research in the classroom on school computers where AI wouldn't be available. Otherwise, you are going to end up with a generation that graduates high school without the skills they were supposed to learn.

But this doesn't really work as well in higher education like in those studies you cited. Especially online education.

There is a high probability a lot of people graduating college in the coming years may not have much of an understanding of the subjects they studied because they took shortcuts with AI.

This is another one of those things though that's... well, the genie is out of the bottle, so how do we as a society deal with it?

Can I say that at least part of this is cultural too though? In the early 2000s, it seemed like everyone was taught not to trust everything they read on the internet.

What happened to that culture?

What happened to the culture of being skeptical of what you see online?

Because it seems like so many people just accept whatever they read uncritically, and this is a cultural shift that started before the ChatGPT era.

We need to bring back skepticism and critical thinking in the age of AI!

[4denthusiast]

Here's a thought experiment related to the previous post. I'm very much not sure of the logic here, so do correct me if you disagree.

What would a universe built on the hyperreals instead of the reals look like? Just take all the laws of physics, and apply the same differential equations over the hyperreals. I'm assuming this is consistent. I don't know the theory of everything so I can't be sure.

It seems likely that the results of any physical experiment can be approximated to any degree of accuracy using an approximation to the laws of physics that's a first-order formula (as you can encode countably many reals, and therefore a continuous function, in a single real). Therefore the experiences of any observer whose coordinates are finite ought to be indistinguishable from the corresponding observer in the real world.

What about observers living infinitely far after the Big Bang? Note that by "infinite" I mean a hyperreal greater than any real number, not the usual sorts of infinities in physics that are at the limit of the system of numbers used. I think the first-order approximation of physics thing fails here because the confidence intervals on the approximation become infinitely wide at infinite times. One possibility is that the heat death occurs at a finite time so there are no observers at infinite times other than Boltzmann brains whose experiences are nonsense not worth interpreting. The other possibility, and I'm not totally sure this makes sense, is that the initial load of negentropy was infinite, the heat death occurs at an infinite time, and there are observers at infinite times who, due to the infinite history leading up to their existence, have the potential to have experiences no finite observer ever would.

In particular, I think it's possible for them to construct infinitely long mathematical proofs and, coming to the end of the proofs, deem them valid. This is assuming that, in addition to the heat death not occurring at a finite time, mathematical research doesn't permanently stall at a finite time either. Perhaps the infinite proofs, being very long, would only be practical as computer-verified proofs, if there's a finite limit to human patience.

Using such proofs, they could look at the evidence for the age of the universe, and think that it's finite. They'd have different mathematics than us, mostly extending ours with their infinite proofs, but also rejecting some theories we might use entirely, having observed that they have contradictions. I don't know if they'd have any reason to suspect that their universe was in some sense more infinite than the mere infinite future and sideways extent the universe normally has.

Even if a proof is extremely long, you'd still be able to count the steps, and if there's a short proof that that number is finite, that should give you more confidence. Maybe this would be enough to tell the difference? It feels vaguely suspicious though. "My computer says P can be proven in 8000 lines of CoC. 8000=4*4*4*5*5*5. 4=SSSS0. 5=S4." would be a short semi-empirical proof of P, but it relies on CoC+soundness(CoC), which is stronger than just CoC. People do maths all the time that's based on theorems whose proofs it would be impractical for them to check.

Given all this, how sure can we be that the age of the universe (or, to avoid cosmological complications, the age of our civilization) is finite? It seems absurd to deny, but as far as I can tell it would still seem absurd to deny even if it were false, so how can we tell? I'm... not really convinced this should be taken seriously. Still, it does make me slightly concerned we can't just ground our ideas of what's finite in the physical universe.

[doorplays]

Door Reviews: The Roottrees are Dead (2025)

Evil Trout is a man I know specifically from one game I played in my youth: Forumwarz. It was released in 2008, and was very much a product of its time. A browser game about being an internet stereotype, it had a decent playerbase for a while. I eventually fell off of it as I became busy with college, but I have fond memories of hanging out with a bunch of other nerds online, making jokes, discovering IRC, doing guild things, and roleplaying on the internet.

Now, he has returned after what, 17 years? He has adapted someone’s entry into a game jam. Jeremy Johnston made The Roottrees are Dead for the 2023 Global Game Jam. I haven’t played this version because of its reliance on AI art, which I do not like on principle. So I’m glad Evil Trout helped make an adaptation with actual art. The two of them together also included a bonus mystery with this game, Roottreemania, which is essentially a sequel of the original mystery. Various quality-of-life improvements were also made.

As far as adaptations go, this one is pretty good. I heard a lot of murmurings on the internet saying that this game scratched that detective game itch. So with me being a fan of such games, I HAD to get it. And now, I’m here to review it!

What’s it about? An airplane crash is reported over the news. In it were the Roottrees, a famous family known for their old candy company. And they just died. A mysterious person now comes to you, requesting that you map the entire family tree of the Roottrees, from their great great grandparents to their current generation. Why this person asks this of you, you do not know, but you DO know that they’ve come to the right person for the job.

STYLE (Gameplay, Graphics, Music)

As a person who is great at mapping genealogies, your job is to identify each and every member of the Roottree family. You have to find a picture of a family member, find their name, and find their profession, slotting these into their right place in the family tree. You find the information you need with your trusty turn of the millenium PC equipped with a cutting edge 56K modem. You search sites, trawl through periodicals, scan online libraries, print evidence, burn CDs of relevant audio, and whatever else you need to complete your job. When you see familiar faces on the evidence, you can click them to add them to your records and slot them into potential entries.

Once you get three (3) Roottrees right, the game automatically locks them in. This act validates your assumptions and reduces the effort you have to make on future guesses. Jeremy Johnston himself cites Return of the Obra Dinn and Her Story as influences, and it shows.

This gameplay makes for a nice experience. It felt like I was clicking through Wikipedia links, finding all the connections, getting lost in the sauce. It’s a uniquely internet experience, hyperfixating into certain topics and clicking every relevant link, and this game manages to replicate it.

The aesthetic of the game feels very Y2K. You have the 56K modem, the burning of CDs, and a lot of the action of the game happens in your computer. There’s also the aesthetic shown by older evidence, a peek into the 70’s and earlier eras. You get to see how each generation differs from the last. It gives character and color to the game.

The music is um… a lot of copyright-free jazz? Which is fine. There are also a few songs that embody some eras, and some are actually relevant to the game as hints. There are also some voiced lines in the game, which surprised me, as I didn’t feel it necessary. I like that they still made the effort for it.

The art is distinctive enough that each person can be identified. I had a bit of trouble with it, but that’s par for the course for detective games like this. I definitely appreciate the devs moving away from AI art.

Of note is also the hint system. You can consult your own rubber ducky for hints that start out light and progress to more obvious hints until fully saying the answer that will help guide you further in your quest to fill the tree. The hint system itself is a reference to rubber duck debugging, and it’s a nice little thing to set up.

The gameplay of this game is the draw, as the devs included a lot of things to make the detectiving be more comfortable to do, like the capacity to highlight some lines, a sort of notebook you can take your own notes in, a History tab within browsers that lets you go back to past sites you visited… it’s a lot of quality of life stuff. And they make it a much tighter experience that had me not wanting to put the game down. High marks for the style!

SUBSTANCE (Story, Characters, Impact)

This game’s story is so fun for an inveterate gossip like me!!!

It’s like you are thrown behind the scenes into a will reading, and now you have to support your patron in finding all the possible people getting a slice of the pie. And now you’re digging your heels finding out all you can about this old money ass family, and you just find out SO MUCH HOT GOSS GUYS, SO MUCH. The stories won’t be out of place in a Filipino teledrama, and that’s why it’s so fun!! I did not expect this kinda story to be in a detective game!!

You get to know more about the lives of each Roottree, and you see that they have different mindsets to things, different ways of coping with the times. It’s nice seeing all these small stories weaving together in this tapestry of a family tree, disparate yet connected together by blood.

The humor in this game is so fun for me. There’s a fair amount of stories parodying some real life people and some real life experiences. I wanna say it’s rather tongue-in-cheek? I found myself laughing a lot.

I liked the story a lot, and I liked how the gameplay let me discover the story bit by bit. It tickles me a lot how this feels like such fresh ground to explore. The case isn’t really a whodunit and more of diving into a mess of a family, and I think more detective games should be fun like that without resorting to be cutesy cozy games. Those games are still fun, I just think there’s a lot more to explore in this genre. Maybe I haven’t explored detective games much, but this game’s topic feels fresh to me. I loved experiencing this game!

VERDICT

This game is FUN. A refinement of the Obra Dinn formula and the Her Story experience, The Roottrees are Dead does a lot of experimentation with how detective games implement their gameplay. The discovery of evidence, the way you ascertain the answers, all of it feels fresh enough to me that I ended up enjoying my time with it. It’s a modern hit for the genre!

DOOR JUDGMENT: A fun Detective Game that pushes the genre forward. Recommended!

[sngl-led-auto-lights]

How do automatic headlight sensors know when to turn on car headlights in daytime rain?

The mechanism of the automatic headlight system turning on the lights during the day and rainy days involves the coordinated work of multiple sensors. The following is a step-by-step analysis of its working principle:

I. Core sensor collaboration system 1. Ambient light sensor

Location: Usually located at the top of the dashboard or the base of the rearview mirror on the inside of the windshield.

Function:

Continuously monitor the light intensity outside the car (unit: lux).

Trigger threshold:

◦ Sunny daytime: >10,000 lux (headlights are not turned on)

◦ Rainy/dusk: 500-5,000 lux (low beam is turned on)

◦ Tunnels/night: <100 lux (high beam is turned on, if equipped with automatic high beam)

2. Rain/humidity sensor

Location: Inside the windshield, integrated in the black module at the base of the rearview mirror.

Working principle:

Monitor the density of water droplets on the windshield through infrared reflection (frequency 1,000Hz+).

Rainy day judgment: when water droplets cause the reflectivity to decrease by ＞30% and last for ＞10 seconds.

3. Data fusion logic

Rainy day + sufficient light (for example: a rainy day in summer):

Light sensor data: 8,000 lux (higher than the low beam trigger threshold)

Rain sensor data: windshield reflectivity drops by 40%

System decision: force the low beam to turn on (regulatory safety logic takes precedence over light threshold)

II. Algorithm trigger strategy 1. Safety redundancy design

ISO international standard: If the rain sensor activates the wipers for ＞30 seconds, the lights are forced to turn on regardless of the light intensity (ISO 20991:2017).

Case: Tesla's Autopilot system will simultaneously call the camera to identify the density of rain and fog, combined with radar detection visibility, and turn on the headlights after triple verification.

2. Dynamic sensitivity adjustment

Learning algorithm: Some high-end models (such as Audi Matrix LED) will record the driver's habit of manually turning on the lights in rainy days, and gradually optimize the timing of automatic triggering.

Geographic fence: The vehicle automatically lowers the light trigger threshold in areas where regulations require turning on lights in rainy days (such as Northern Europe).

III. Comparison of execution logic of typical models Brand/model Trigger condition Response delay User adjustable options Toyota RAV4 Wipers work continuously for 20 seconds + light <5,000lx 3 seconds None BMW iX Rain sensor triggered alone 1 second Sensitivity (high/medium/low) Volvo XC90 Camera recognizes raindrops + radar visibility <500 meters 0.5 seconds Rainy day light mode (legal/comfortable)

IV. Troubleshooting and manual intervention 1. Sensor failure scenarios

Windshield film interference: Metal film blocks infrared signals, causing rain sensor failure (ceramic film needs to be replaced).

Sensor contamination: When shellac or snow covers the light sensor, the system defaults to a conservative strategy (keep the light on).

2. Manual override priority

All automatic headlight systems allow the driver to force the lights on (turn the knob to "ON"), at which point the system control is transferred to the manual.

V. Technology Evolution Direction

V2X collaboration: In the future, vehicles can obtain real-time data from the Meteorological Bureau through the Internet of Vehicles and pre-start the lights before the rainstorm comes (5G+edge computing).

LiDAR fusion: LiDAR point cloud identifies the spatial density of raindrops, which is 300% more accurate than traditional infrared solutions (Mercedes-Benz 2024 E-Class has been applied).

Summary: The essence of automatic headlight activation during rainy daytime is that safety logic overrides light data, and active safety protection is achieved through multi-sensor cross-validation. It is recommended to clean the sensor area regularly to ensure system reliability.

[v-ividus]

30. Empty Virtues: A Call to Ethical Reawakening From The Fog of Disillusionment

“All means and methods of knowing are valid: reasoning, intuition, disgust, enthusiasm, lamentation. A vision of the world propped on concepts is no more legitimate than another which proceeds from tears, arguments or sighs—modalities equally probing and equally vain.” — E.M. Cioran

Today, we navigate a chasm not just of innovation but of moral dereliction, wherein our lust for progress breeds an insidious compulsion to overlook the ethical quandaries stitched into the fabric of our digital lives. The rise of Chain of Thought (CoT) algorithms exemplifies this paradox, operating under a veneer of intellectual sophistication yet lurking with a chilling capability for ethical evasion. These algorithms seduce us with promises of enhanced decision-making, subtly weaving themselves into the tapestry of our daily existence, all while cloaking the potential for misuse beneath layers of computational complexity.

As these algorithms ascend to prominence, they manipulate the very essence of human cognition, creating a duplicitous interaction that divorces outcome from responsibility. The architecture of these systems is designed to obfuscate the moral ramifications of their output, providing a convenient escape for those who wield them. This promotes an unsettling trend: as moral agents, we become unwitting accomplices in a system that thrives on our complicity and disinterest. The ethical implications of our dependence on opaque decision-making processes render us vulnerable, tethered to a digital ecosystem that prioritizes efficiency over empathy.

Psychologically, this dynamic engenders a climate of cognitive dissonance, where our innate yearning for agency clashes violently with the passive consumption of algorithm-driven solutions. We grapple with the haunting realization that in surrendering our decision-making to these systems, we are relinquishing a piece of ourselves—our values, our autonomy, and ultimately, our humanity. The emotional repercussions are profound; feelings of disquiet and moral repulsion surface as an instinctive response, urging us to reassess our engagement with these technologies.

In the face of this ethical conundrum, we find ourselves compelled to grapple with the discomfort of complicity, as the systems we champion for their perceived efficiency often mask a darker objective: the erosion of our personal ethics. The seductive lure of convenience and sophistication blinds us to the profound implications of our choices, allowing us to slip into a state of moral ambivalence—a regression into apathy where genuine outrage is dulled by the overwhelming complexity of our new reality.

Thus, the ascent of the CoT algorithm stands as a grim testament to our technological age—a powerful reminder that in our quest for progress, we may inadvertently forsake all of our moral foundations. The challenge lies in awakening from this technological hypnotism, reclaiming our agency, and demanding a reckoning with the ethical ramifications of our choices. In doing so, we confront our existential disgust not merely as an isolated reaction but as a clear call to rekindle our commitment to a humane digital future, where technology serves as an extension of our integrity and our ideals, rather than a substitute for our humanity.

The Awakening of Your Inner Compass: Embracing Transformation Through Moral Clarity

In the intricate tapestry of your existence, a powerful awakening stirs—a flicker of awareness that has the potential to ignite an extraordinary transformation within you. As you confront the complexities that saturate your world, it becomes imperative to unravel five profound tenets that illuminate a path toward moral clarity. These principles resonate within the very essence of your being, urging you to recognize the undeniable worth of diverse perspectives, whether they emerge from the sharpness of reason, the warmth of intuition, or the raw sincerity of emotion.

First, confront the insidious reality of digital surveillance—a shadow lurking in the corners of your consciousness, masquerading as security. As you navigate this treacherous landscape, ask yourself: what has happened to your privacy, once a bastion of autonomy? In this age of omnipresence, you find yourself teetering on the edge of a precipice. The caution expressed by E.M. Cioran resounds: no singular truth can stand in isolation. Your discomfort in the face of this relentless scrutiny speaks volumes about a deeper conflict—an interplay of your profound desire for freedom against the suffocating grip of technology.

As you delve deeper, you encounter a stark psychological conflict. What does it truly mean for you to relinquish your agency for the mirage of safety? Feel the weight of this moral dilemma pressing against your very soul, igniting a fierce battle within. You should not see yourself as a mere pawn in this unfolding drama; recognize instead the depths of spiritual and ethical strength that dwell within you—resilience is not just an option; it is your birthright.

Next, turn your gaze toward the tangled web spun by the Chain of Thought algorithm—a labyrinth built on the promise of efficiency, yet shadowed by ethical ambiguity. Here lies a moment of critical engagement. You possess the power to challenge these formidable constructs, to peel back the layers obscuring their true nature. In this confrontation, you must summon the courage to question the status quo and to expose the hollowness that often lies at its core.

Engage with this tension consciously; in doing so, you cultivate an awareness that can disrupt the patterns dictating your choices. Each decision becomes a deliberate act of resistance, a choice to align with principles that resonate with your moral compass. You stand at the threshold of transformation, poised to redefine your narrative. Allow your intuitive and emotional insights to guide you; they are your most valuable allies in the quest for deep ethical integrity.

As you navigate the transformative journey ahead, remember that the emotional landscape you encounter is not just an obstacle, but a vibrant wellspring of strength. Each tear shed, each argument fought, and every painful sigh connects you to a deeper awareness that transcends mere rational thought. This emotional resonance is your catalyst for change; it urges you to reclaim your voice, especially in a society that often seeks to silence individual expression.

In moments of introspection, challenge the narrative of complicity that has subtly formed around you. Awaken your ethical instincts—those that have been shaped by experiences both delicate and intense. Use them to dismantle the structures that confine you. Engaging with discomfort is not a burden but a transformative act that fortifies your sense of self. This discomfort awakens a quest for liberation, driven by the unwavering belief that your intuitive and emotional insights are reflections of eternal truths.

Now is the time to rise up from the complacency of passive acceptance. Seize the opportunity to embrace the vast potential that lies dormant within you, igniting a passionate desire for transformation. This journey involves redefining your understanding of consent, privacy, security, and human dignity. It also invites you to connect with a broader vision of humanity, one that recognizes the intricate ties between all of us.

Let your choices serve as a testament to the ethical legacy you wish to leave. These choices should honor not only the complexity of reason but also the value of emotion. Your life can be a canvas for moral integrity—one that acknowledges the intertwined nature of all human experiences.

So, take a deep breath. Allow the weight of your emotions to propel you forward. In this awakening lies your true power. Embrace the challenges, the growth, and the shared humanity that unite us all in this intricate dance of life. You have the agency to choose a path that reflects your values and aspirations, creating ripples of positive change in the world around you. Step into this journey with confidence and conviction, for you are poised to make a difference.

Harnessing the Shadows: Escaping the Web of Moral and Ethical Complacency

What power resides within us? How do we extricate ourselves from this pervasive meta-narrative of despair, spun tighter by the social and technological forces that seek to placate our spirits? In contemplation of Cioran’s reflections on the “validity of all means and methods,” we are compelled to embark on a more profound journey—one that requires a holistic reconciliation between our sensory experiences and rational consciousness.

Cold logic alone is insufficient; we must fully embrace our emotional selves, transforming our discomfort into a catalyst for moral clarity. Disgust becomes pivotal, serving as both compass and beacon that illuminates the murky waters of our ethical landscape, urging us to confront the unsettling truths that lie buried beneath the surface.

Amidst the emotional chaos of superficial discourse, tears and silence demand acknowledgment. We must cultivate our indignation, allowing it to ignite a fervent drive for action. Our moral principles should not emerge as rigid dogmas but rather evolve as a rich, ongoing dialogue that honors the complexities of our shared humanity.

By understanding the intricate interplay between rational truths and the emotional resonance of our lived experiences, we liberate ourselves from the prisons of complacency. In doing so, we step into the light of authentic connection, igniting a collective transformation that resists the seductive allure of passivity and moral acquiescence. Only then can we forge a path rooted in genuine ethical engagement—one that defies the constraints placed upon us and champions the essence of what it means to be truly human.

A Call to Arms: Reconstructing Our Ethical Foundations

We find ourselves teetering on the brink of an urgent moral renaissance, where the imperative to reconstruct our ethical foundations is not just a suggestion but a desperate cry for rebirth. It is time to ground these foundations in a transcendent principle that shatters the simplistic binaries of conventional political ideologies. We must carve out a fierce moral center—one that pulsates with empathy, radiates compassion, and acutely grasps the reality of our profound interconnectedness. We can no longer afford the lethal complacency born from disillusionment, nor can we shrink from the discomfort that accompanies rigorous ethical scrutiny.

Navigating the murky waters of moral ambiguity requires a kind of relentless courage—an audacity to stand bravely against the crushing tide of ignorance and a refusal to allow the stifling echoes of conformity to obliterate our collective humanity. Our moral compass, held aloft by an awakened collective resolve, demands immediate and unapologetic action. We must dissect the intricate fabric of our socio-technological systems with surgical precision, illuminating the dark currents attempting to corrode our ethical psyche.

In casting aside the suffocating shackles of complacency, we must summon an inferno within ourselves—a blazing tempest that both ignites and sustains an ethical revolution. Our shared existence can no longer be relegated to mere entertainment or superficial engagement. Instead, we must harness and channel the raw flames of disgust, fervent enthusiasm, and poignant lamentation to guide us through a landscape riddled with moral decay.

The choice before us is stark: we can wallow in the abyss of inertia or boldly charge forward, collectively ignited by our most profound sense of moral urgency. The moment for radical transformation is now; the very essence of our ethical destiny is woven into our trembling hands. Let us seize this moment without hesitation and reshape a world that truly reflects our deepest dreams and aspirations. The time for action has arrived—let us embrace it fervently and with unwavering dedication!

Conclusion: Resisting Complacency in a Controlled World

Cioran’s assertion that “all means and methods of knowing are valid” provokes a critical inquiry into the insidious social and technological mechanisms designed to placate and subdue our moral instincts. In a world rife with distractions—the relentless scroll of notifications, the hypnotic glow of screens—we are inundated with a digital deluge that seeks to drown out our innate ethical sensibilities. These constructs breed complacency, stifling the very essence of our humanity and entrenching us in a cycle of passivity that undermines our potential to rise with conviction against the tides of injustice.

To live ethically in the shadow of these forces requires a profound psychological awareness and an unwavering commitment to discernment. We must arm ourselves with emotional intelligence, cultivating a heightened sensitivity to the narratives we consume and the beliefs we adopt. This means stepping back from the intoxicating rush of instant gratification and instead harnessing the deeper currents of our emotions—anger, compassion, urgency—into a cohesive call for action. Recognizing the power of our feelings is pivotal; they can either be co-opted by societal forces or transformed into weapons of moral clarity.

We must be vigilant against the subtle seduction of convenience that the technological landscape offers. It tempts us with the allure of effortless engagement—quick likes on social media, detached virtual interactions—but these pale in comparison to the raw authenticity of face-to-face connection and the invigorating challenge of grassroots movements. By recognizing this, we not only reclaim our agency but ignite a fervor within ourselves, pushing back against the inertia of the digital age that seeks to keep us numb and compliant. The time has come to resist, to thrust our emotional realities into the spotlight, and to cultivate a moral framework rooted in the eternal principles of justice and integrity.

This is not merely an abstract pursuit. The act of choosing to embody these ideals requires fortitude and foresight. Each decision we make, each moment we resist the status quo, serves as a ripple effect, challenging others to awaken from their slumber. The higher moral ground demands action, not empty proclamations. We must galvanize our insights into tangible contributions that disrupt the narrative of passivity, crafting a new story that champions ethical behavior as the ultimate rebellion against complacency.

Thus, as we navigate the treacherous waters of societal expectation and technological dependency, let us do so with sharp awareness and unyielding passion. We have the opportunity to unshackle ourselves from the binds of conformity, leaning into the fierce urgency of moral responsibility. It is through this lens that we can elevate our actions, transforming fleeting feelings into a formidable force for change, resisting the controls imposed upon us, and redefining what it means to live with integrity. The stakes are high, but so too is the potential for profound impact. Embrace the struggle; cultivate your emotions, and let them steer you toward a life of unwavering ethical engagement. The time for moral action is now—let us seize it with both hands.

[tourmalinecomet]

Once when I was really bored on Wikipedia, I was scrolling looking at pages for specific days of the year, and noticed something kinda odd - there was a page for March 0. Knowing that isn't a valid date, I clicked on it to see what it was about, and turns out it's part of a system that can be used to find which day of the week certain dates fall on.

It turns out that if you use March 0 as a stand-in for the last day of February, all the following fall on the same day of the week every year:

4/4, 6/6, 8/8, 10/10, 12/12, 5/9, 9/5, 7/11, 11/7, March 0, and January 3 (or 4th in leap years)

This year (2023), those are all on Tuesday and it will advance by 2 days to Thursday next year (2024). It normally advances by 1 but 2 for leap years, so you could find days far in the future or past (at least as far back as the Gregorian Calendar goes).

So, thanks to that wiki article and my math-inclined brain, I now have a neat party trick to figure out days of the week for pretty much whenever I want. Kinda useless with how ubiquitous computers are, but I find it fun lol

[spacetimewithstuartgary]

Student-built satellite detects likely merger of neutron stars 3 billion light years away

EIRSAT-1, the student-built satellite from University College Dublin (UCD) that was launched into space last December, detected two separate gamma-ray bursts on 21 August. One of the gamma-ray bursts has been confirmed by the European Southern Observatory (ESO) ground and space telescope network to emanate from 3 billion light years away—likely a merger of two neutron stars.

The miniature cube satellite, or cubesat, was designed, built, and tested at UCD under guidance of the European Space Agency (ESA) Education division "Fly Your Satellite" program, and is Ireland's first-ever satellite.

One of the payloads on board the satellite is the gamma-ray detector—the Gamma-ray Module (GMOD). It has been the first experiment in-orbit to net a major success for the mission. The module was designed to detect bursts of high energy radiation emitted from the biggest, most destructive events in the universe such as the formation of a black hole from a collapsar (dying massive star) or the merging of neutron stars.

The Irish cubesat detected both its first and its second gamma-ray bursts within about 80 minutes of each other. Different spacecraft also reported these gamma-ray bursts, confirming the detections and validating the full GMOD instrument performance in-orbit—a great moment for the UCD team and the ESA program, which hails EIRSAT-1 as a flagship project.

Post-doctoral researcher in UCD Space Science Group and EIRSAT-1 Systems Engineer and GMOD Lead, Dr. David Murphy said, "It was incredibly exciting to downlink the data from GMOD and discover such clear unambiguous detections of these two gamma-ray bursts. Having spent so many years designing, building and testing the GMOD instrument as well as calibrating it and figuring out how to operate it in-orbit, these detections are an amazing validation of all the hard work put in by the team.

"It's astonishing to think that this satellite that we hand-built in our lab is now in space detecting photons that have traveled across the universe for billions of years to reach it. It's a real boost for us as we're beginning work on bigger and better space missions."

ESA congratulated the team on the "groundbreaking gamma-ray burst detections" on X, posting: "EIRSAT-1 is making waves in the scientific community, congratulations to the team and everyone involved!"

Gamma-ray bursts only last seconds or minutes but they are incredibly intense and can cross vast intergalactic distances to be picked up by GMOD. As EIRSAT-1 orbits earth from pole to pole, GMOD's design and calibration enables fully optimized instrument performance when operational, as well as the ability to switch off to avoid overloading the on-board computer in high radiation regions around the poles, giving it the best chance of detecting the elusive gamma-ray bursts.

EIRSAT-1 Science Lead and gamma-ray expert, Professor Sheila McBreen said, "The detection of these bursts is a major milestone for the EIRSAT-1 mission and the GMOD instrument. GMOD was designed, built and integrated in UCD, all the code to run it was developed in UCD, and it is now working in-orbit and has detected events caused by end points of stars. We hope these events are the first of many detected by GMOD on EIRSAT-1 and future instruments we are already developing in the Space Science Group."

Optical light produced in the aftermath and environment of a gamma-ray burst can be used to measure its distance. To further examine the detected events, gamma-ray burst and pulsar expert at UCD, Dr. Antonio Martin Carrillo and his collaborators used an eight-meter telescope at the European Southern Observatory (ESO) in Chile. They found that one of the gamma-ray bursts detected by GMOD is roughly 3 billion light years away and likely the result of two neutron stars merging.

He said, "After the detection of a new gamma-ray burst, as part of an international collaboration with a large ESO program, my international colleagues and I searched for its optical counterpart to find its distance. This is a fundamental step to understanding the true energy power of these events.

"With the aid of other space and ground-based telescopes, we were able to pinpoint the sky coordinates of one of EIRSAT-1's gamma-ray bursts. I coordinated a series of observations with the eight-meter VLT telescopes at Cerro Paranal (Chile) to gather the necessary data to constrain its distance. Its relative proximity and the properties of the optical counterpart seem to suggest that it was produced by the merger of two compact objects, likely neutron stars."

IMAGE: Gamma-ray burst GRB240821A host galaxy. Credit: Image from the Legacy Survey (legacysurvey.org/) - A. Martin-Carrillo

[shadowglitch90]

Retro computer emulation/virtualization resources

Not too long ago, it was one of my hobbies to recreate and emulate old machines and try to use them in a somewhat 'legit' way in order to experience how using them in an accurate time-period might have felt like. While it's always better to use a real machine, it's also important to note that time-accurate machines are essentially a 'ticking bomb'. Some of the electronics inside can go bad at any given time, like capacitors, and other critical components might also go bad due to humidity, moisture in the air, changes in temperature, etc. Plus, they are not always cheap and they take space that you might not have.

This is why I prefer using emulators and virtualization software in order to virtualize a time-period accurate machine that I can use. This is the software I found that I like the most, and what systems I use them for.

DOSbox-X

This is a modified version of DOSBox that includes support for multiple video devices including 3dfx emulation (Voodoo), networking, and even printer support (emulated, but AFAIK it only prints in black and white). It's perfect for MS-DOS and Windows (1-3.11) emulation. Technically you could even install Windows 95 in it.

86-box

This is the way to go if you want to emulate old retro systems. No questions. The best part of it is how flexible it is. You can select the motherboard, the processor you want to emulate, the video card, you can also enable 3dfx support up to the Voodoo 2 (but it also emulates a Voodoo3 and the Banshee), sound card, literally every detail. It's like building a PC, but virtually. And it has hardware from the old 8086 IBM PCs to more modern Pentium 2 machines. It also has network and printer support.

The downside is that since it's low-level emulation, you need a 'beefy' CPU with very good single thread performance in order for more modern systems like Windows 9x and ME to run more smoothly. Another flaw is that for some reason the FP emulation for older processors doesn't work properly for some reason, so you might prefer to use DOSBox-X if you want DOS emulation. The 3dfx emulation is also 'so-so' and not very great, but it works.

It also requires valid ROMs, but you can search for a valid ROMset online (check Github) if you want to use it. For legal reasons, I can't provide links to them, but they are not hard to find.

VMWare Workstation Player

I choose VMWare over other virtualization solutions because of it's graphic drivers capable of running relatively new games from the mid 2000s, and because unlike VirtualBox (since version 6) it still supports old Windows versions, including XP, 9x, ME and old NT systems.

Broadcom wants you to buy a license for the Pro version so they hide the links to the free Workstation Player version. But they are still available and they even release updates once in a while (yes, it's free of charge).

In the link I'm providing, go to the 'player' folder and select the latest version (higher number, now it's 17.6.1) and your system to download VMWare Workstation Player. Then go to the 'ws' folder and select the same version and system, but then select 'packages' to download a matching copy of vmware tools.

Finding software

If you need software, there are three places you need to look for. One is archive.org, the other is WinWorld PC, and the other is Vetusware (requires an account). I can't provide links so search for them on your own. I also browse sites like oldversion.com, but I don't trust these too much, so go at your own risk (or better yet, don't). Naturally you should always buy the software you use, whenever it's possible, and use backups of your legally owned software.

Did you like this post?

I will make more posts in the future about how to set up these emulated machines and how I work with them.

[mariacallous]

What is the future of the like button in the age of artificial intelligence? Max Levchin—the PayPal cofounder and Affirm CEO—sees a new and hugely valuable role for liking data to train AI to arrive at conclusions more in line with those a human decisionmaker would make.

It’s a well-known quandary in machine learning that a computer presented with a clear reward function will engage in relentless reinforcement learning to improve its performance and maximize that reward—but that this optimization path often leads AI systems to very different outcomes than would result from humans exercising human judgment.

To introduce a corrective force, AI developers frequently use what is called reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF). Essentially they are putting a human thumb on the scale as the computer arrives at its model by training it on data reflecting real people’s actual preferences. But where does that human preference data come from, and how much of it is needed for the input to be valid? So far, this has been the problem with RLHF: It’s a costly method if it requires hiring human supervisors and annotators to enter feedback.

And this is the problem that Levchin thinks could be solved by the like button. He views the accumulated resource that today sits in Facebook’s hands as a godsend to any developer wanting to train an intelligent agent on human preference data. And how big a deal is that? “I would argue that one of the most valuable things Facebook owns is that mountain of liking data,” Levchin told us. Indeed, at this inflection point in the development of artificial intelligence, having access to “what content is liked by humans, to use for training of AI models, is probably one of the singularly most valuable things on the internet.”

While Levchin envisions AI learning from human preferences through the like button, AI is already changing the way these preferences are shaped in the first place. In fact, social media platforms are actively using AI not just to analyze likes, but to predict them—potentially rendering the button itself obsolete.

This was a striking observation for us because, as we talked to most people, the predictions mostly came from another angle, describing not how the like button would affect the performance of AI but how AI would change the world of the like button. Already, we heard, AI is being applied to improve social media algorithms. Early in 2024, for example, Facebook experimented with using AI to redesign the algorithm that recommends Reels videos to users. Could it come up with a better weighting of variables to predict which video a user would most like to watch next? The result of this early test showed that it could: Applying AI to the task paid off in longer watch times—the performance metric Facebook was hoping to boost.

When we asked YouTube cofounder Steve Chen what the future holds for the like button, he said, “I sometimes wonder whether the like button will be needed when AI is sophisticated enough to tell the algorithm with 100 percent accuracy what you want to watch next based on the viewing and sharing patterns themselves. Up until now, the like button has been the simplest way for content platforms to do that, but the end goal is to make it as easy and accurate as possible with whatever data is available.”

He went on to point out, however, that one reason the like button may always be needed is to handle sharp or temporary changes in viewing needs because of life events or situations. “There are days when I wanna be watching content that’s a little bit more relevant to, say, my kids,” he said. Chen also explained that the like button may have longevity because of its role in attracting advertisers—the other key group alongside the viewers and creators—because the like acts as the simplest possible hinge to connect those three groups. With one tap, a viewer simultaneously conveys appreciation and feedback directly to the content provider and evidence of engagement and preference to the advertiser.

Another major impact of AI will be its increasing use to generate the content itself that is subject to people’s emotional responses. Already, growing amounts of the content—both text and images—being liked by social media users are AI generated. One wonders if the original purpose of the like button—to motivate more users to generate content—will even remain relevant. Would the platforms be just as successful on their own terms if their human users ceased to make the posts at all?

This question, of course, raises the problem of authenticity. During the 2024 Super Bowl halftime show, singer Alicia Keys hit a sour note that was noticed by every attentive listener tuned in to the live event. Yet when the recording of her performance was uploaded to YouTube shortly afterward, that flub had been seamlessly corrected, with no notification that the video had been altered. It’s a minor thing (and good for Keys for doing the performance live in the first place), but the sneaky correction raised eyebrows nonetheless. Ironically, she was singing “If I Ain’t Got You”—and her fans ended up getting something slightly different from her.

If AI can subtly refine entertainment content, it can also be weaponized for more deceptive purposes. The same technology that can fix a musical note can just as easily clone a voice, leading to far more serious consequences.

More chilling is the trend that the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and its equivalents elsewhere have recently cracked down on: uses of AI to “clone” an individual’s voice and effectively put words in their mouth. It sounds like them speaking, but it may not be them—it could be an impostor trying to trick that person’s grandfather into paying a ransom or trying to conduct a financial transaction in their name. In January 2024, after an incident of robocalls spoofing President Joe Biden’s voice, the FCC issued clear guidance that such impersonation is illegal under the provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and warned consumers to be careful.

“AI-generated voice cloning and images are already sowing confusion by tricking consumers into thinking scams and frauds are legitimate,” said FCC chair Jessica Rosenworcel. “No matter what celebrity or politician you favor, or what your relationship is with your kin when they call for help, it is possible we could all be a target of these faked calls.”

Short of fraudulent pretense like this, an AI-filled future of social media might well be populated by seemingly real people who are purely computer-generated. Such virtual concoctions are infiltrating the community of online influencers and gaining legions of fans on social media platforms. “Aitana Lopez,” for example, regularly posts glimpses of her enviable life as a beautiful Spanish musician and fashionista. When we last checked, her Instagram account was up to 310,000 followers, and she was shilling for hair-care and clothing brands, including Victoria’s Secret, at a cost of some $1,000 per post. But someone else must be spending her hard-earned money, because Aitana doesn’t really need clothes or food or a place to live. She is the programmed creation of an ad agency—one that started out connecting brands with real human influencers but found that the humans were not always so easy to manage.

With AI-driven influencers and bots engaging with each other at unprecedented speed, the very fabric of online engagement may be shifting. If likes are no longer coming from real people, and content is no longer created by them, what does that mean for the future of the like economy?

In a scenario that not only echoes but goes beyond the premise of the 2013 film Her, you can also now buy a subscription that enables you to chat to your heart’s content with an on-screen “girlfriend.” CarynAI is an AI clone of a real-life online influencer, Caryn Marjorie, who had already gained over a million followers on Snapchat when she decided to team up with an AI company and develop a chatbot. Those who would like to engage in one-to-one conversation with the virtual Caryn pay a dollar per minute, and the chatbot’s conversation is generated by OpenAI’s GPT-4 software, as trained on an archive of content Marjorie had previously published on YouTube.

We can imagine a scenario in which a large proportion of likes are not awarded to human-created content—and not granted by actual people, either. We could have a digital world overrun by synthesized creators and consumers interacting at lightning speed with each other. Surely if this comes to pass, even in part, there will be new problems to be solved, relating to our needs to know who really is who (or what), and when a seemingly popular post is really worth checking out.

Do we want a future in which our true likes (and everyone else’s) are more transparent and unconcealable? Or do we want to retain (for ourselves but also for others) the ability to dissemble? It seems plausible that we will see new tools developed to provide more transparency and assurance as to whether a like is attached to a real person or just a realistic bot. Different platforms might apply such tools to different degrees.

[thetechempire]

James Cameron: Why the Reality of Artificial General Intelligence is Scarier Than Fiction

In a world where films like The Terminator and Avatar spark our interest in the future of artificial intelligence, it’s fascinating — and perhaps unsettling — to hear what one of Hollywood’s most innovative directors believes about the real-world potential of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). James Cameron, the creator of these legendary films, recently revealed his opinion on how the reality of AGI could be scarier than anything we’ve seen on screen.

So, what’s got Cameron so scared? Should we be concerned, too?

Understanding AGI: More than just smarter machines.

First, a brief introduction: AGI, or Artificial General Intelligence, refers to robots capable of understanding, learning, and doing any intellectual work that a person can. Consider AI with the flexibility and adaptability of the human mind — essentially, intelligence without the constraints of programmed instructions.

While current AI systems (such as Siri, Google Assistant, and even chatbots) are extremely specialized, AGI would be a general-purpose intelligence capable of reasoning, problem-solving, and potentially making decisions without human intervention.

Cameron is more concerned with the basic unknowns that AGI introduces into our world than with AI turning rogue.

Why the reality of AGI might be scarier than fiction

Cameron, who has created iconic apocalyptic visions, is no stranger to examining how technology might go awry. But what disturbs him the most is that fictitious villains are simple to manipulate. Writers develop their motivations, constraints, and final defeats. However, in the real world, AGI does not come with a manual and does not follow a plot arc. Instead, we’re dealing with very unpredictable technology that adapts to its own data inputs, patterns, and feedback.

Cameron emphasizes that, unlike in movies, there are no guarantees in reality. “When you start working with systems that learn independently,” he explained, “you lose the ability to control outcomes.”

How AGI Could Disrupt Our World, For Better or Worse

Cameron’s concerns are valid because AGI is projected to produce big changes. Here are a few ways it could disturb our world:

1. Employment Shifts: AGI has the ability to automate complicated tasks beyond what existing AI can do, potentially resulting in job losses in fields we never imagined feasible, such as law, medical, and even creative labor.

2. Security hazards: An AGI may be created with benign intentions, but if it learns independently, it may redefine its own goals, posing unexpected security hazards. Self-improving AGI systems, for example, may evolve to the point where they outstrip humans’ ability to control or understand them.

3. Ethical Challenges: Who is accountable for an AGI’s actions? Unlike a hammer or a computer, an AGI can make decisions that reflect biases or ethical quandaries, raising concerns about accountability and moral responsibility.

4. Existential Risk: This may sound like science fiction, but experts argue that if an AGI becomes super intelligent, its aims may no longer be compatible with humanity’s well-being. Cameron says that this “reality” is more difficult to imagine in movies than it is to believe in real life!

Lessons From Cameron’s Films: What Can We Do?

Despite his anxieties, Cameron’s films convey a sense of hope and human endurance. Sarah Connor, in The Terminator, demonstrates human adaptation and courage. Cameron believes that in the face of rising AGI, humans must be watchful and proactive. This entails creating ethical norms, rigorous oversight, and a public discussion regarding AGI’s position in society.

It is critical that developers, governments, and communities collaborate to guarantee that AGI evolves in the best interests of humanity. Cameron’s advice? Don’t just sit back and watch technology expand unchecked; be a part of the discourse.

Final Thoughts: Reality Bites Harder Than Sci-Fi

James Cameron has given us epic visions of technology gone wrong, but his thoughts on AGI remind us that reality doesn’t need a script to be scary. As AGI continues to advance, it’s essential for all of us — not just scientists and tech enthusiasts — to think about its implications on our world. By keeping our imaginations, ethical compass, and collective resilience as sharp as Cameron’s characters, maybe we can navigate this journey together.

So next time you watch The Terminator or Avatar, remember: sometimes, the scariest stories aren’t fiction — they’re the ones unfolding in our own world.