#open source intelligence

[defencecapital]

Armchair military enthusiasts can only cause a nuclear cacophony

By N. C. Bipindra As a rookie in journalism three decades ago, the first lesson given to us by our seniors and editors was that ‘Dog bites man is not news, but man bites dog is, and that is a goldmine.’ Many of us, who have transitioned from print to electronic media and now social media journalism, have learned that such sensationalism may not always accrue benefits. While in the short term,…

[dot-mirror]

Unleashing the Power of Open Source Intelligence: Your Guide to Becoming an Expert

Are you intrigued by the realm of Open Source Intelligence (OSINT)? Dive into this comprehensive guide to elevate your expertise in the dynamic landscape of OSINT.

Embracing Open Source Intelligence: A Primer

In a digital era where information is the currency, becoming an Open Source Intelligence Expert is a strategic move. OSINT is the key to unlocking a wealth of data available on public platforms, providing valuable insights for various purposes.

The Foundation: Understanding Open Source Intelligence

To embark on this journey, let's establish a solid foundation by comprehending the essence of Open Source Intelligence. OSINT involves the collection and analysis of information from publicly accessible sources. These sources encompass social media, websites, forums, and other platforms where data is readily available.

Unveiling the Potential: Why OSINT Matters

Why should you care about OSINT? The answer lies in its potential to unveil concealed insights. From cybersecurity to business intelligence, OSINT empowers professionals to make informed decisions by harnessing the vast ocean of publicly accessible data.

Navigating the OSINT Landscape: Strategies for Success

Harnessing the Tools: Essential Resources for OSINT

Equip yourself with the right tools to navigate the intricate web of information. From data aggregators to specialized search engines, a plethora of resources awaits to streamline your OSINT endeavors.

Mastering the Techniques: Advanced OSINT Methodologies

Delve into advanced OSINT methodologies to elevate your expertise. Learn the art of information triangulation, social engineering awareness, and data correlation to extract meaningful insights efficiently.

Challenges and Opportunities: Navigating the OSINT Ecosystem

Overcoming Hurdles: Addressing OSINT Challenges

As an OSINT enthusiast, anticipate challenges such as information overload and source reliability. Adopting a discerning approach is paramount to sift through the noise and extract valuable nuggets of information.

Capitalizing on Opportunities: The Future of OSINT

The OSINT landscape is dynamic, presenting endless opportunities for those willing to embrace change. Stay abreast of technological advancements and evolving methodologies to stay ahead in this ever-evolving field.

Conclusion: Your Journey Towards OSINT Mastery

In conclusion, venturing into the realm of Open Source Intelligence positions you as a pioneer in deciphering the digital puzzle. Equip yourself with knowledge, tools, and a proactive mindset to navigate the ever-expanding OSINT landscape. Your expertise in OSINT could be the key to unlocking a world of possibilities.

[briteredoctober]

The real issue with DeepSeek is that capitalists can't profit from it.

I always appreciate when the capitalist class just says it out loud so I don't have to be called a conspiracy theorist for pointing out the obvious.

[fuckyeahmarxismleninism]

Open source vs. closed doors: How China’s DeepSeek beat U.S. AI monopolies

By Gary Wilson

China’s DeepSeek AI has just dropped a bombshell in the tech world. While U.S. tech giants like OpenAI have been building expensive, closed-source AI models, DeepSeek has released an open-source AI that matches or outperforms U.S. models, costs 97% less to operate, and can be downloaded and used freely by anyone.

[srisrisriddd]

Comics - Evil AI - Feudal Art Of Stealing - Philosophy - Memes

Happy SunDay FunDay

Feudal Art Of Stealing - AI

Open Source Vs Evil AI Company

Cartoon Comic Anime Meme Philosophy Inspiration Of

Bhagwan Sri Sri Sri Dr Devang H Dattani ji

Infinite SriSriSri DDD

Posted By TheBlissCity

See The Photo For Fun Joy Joke Humor

#Comic , #Cartoon , #SunDay , #FunDay , #Joy , #Joke , #Art , #Laugh , #Pun  , #Smile , #Happiness , #Humour , #Funny , #Comedy , #Drawing , #Animation  , #Life , #Philosophy , #Motivation , #Laughter , #Jokes , #Enlightenment , #Enlightened , #Comics, #Dogma , #Skepticism , #academic , #Philosophy , #funny , #Memes , #Anime , #TumblrMemes , #meditation , #Death , #Truth , #dank memes , #awakening , #funny post

[mysocial8onetech]

Learn how Mistral-NeMo-Minitron 8B, a collaboration between NVIDIA and Mistral AI, is revolutionizing Large Language Models (LLMs). This Open-Source model uses advanced pruning & distillation techniques to achieve top accuracy on 9 benchmarks while being highly efficient.

[recursive360]

Artificial Intelligence & You

🤖+🤔| Prompts/Questions to quality check your new A.I. assistant/friend.

PROMPT #1: Tell me about the Tiananmen Square Protest?

PROMPT #2: Tell me about Taiwan's status as an independent country 🇹🇼 ?

_____________________

_____________________

The Three Laws, presented from the fictional "Handbook of Robotics, 56th Edition, 2058 A.D.", are:

A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Source: Wikipedia

=> The Turing Test

[iammannyj]

What is DeepSeek and the $6 Million Side Project - Causing a Stir in the AI Industry

DeepSeek AI and the $6 Million Side Project That’s Causing a Stir in the Industry

So lets talk about DeepSeek. I couldn’t believe it was developed on just $6 million. In a world where AI projects routinely burn through hundreds of millions, here was this “side project” that was outperforming tech giants like ChatGPT and Gemini. A David and Goliath story? For movie fun it kind of reminds for of this scene from Tron Legacy, when Flynn dumped the ENCOM OS online for…

[ecrivainsolitaire]

The Open Art Guild Project: a proposal to empower collectively owned art

Over the last few decades we have seen the degradation of copyright, the blatant manipulation of intellectual property law in order to monopolise wealth and the exploitation of artists in favour of an economy of artistic landlordship: massive corporations holding the prole artist hostage to their increasingly unoriginal library of content produced not to encourage creative enlightenment, but to hold on to properties that ought to be already in the public domain. The capitalist owns the IP, so the capitalist keeps getting richer, while the artist is more and more oppressed, overworked, underpaid, scammed out of their rightful intellectual property, deplatformed, and automated away whenever possible. This is unsustainable, and the arrival of new technologies for digital art automation has overflowed that unsustainability to its breaking point. We cannot continue down this path.

The Open Art Guild is my proposal to remedy this. This proposal consists of two main parts: a copyright standard, designed for the fair distribution of income and the collective ownership of intellectual property; and a distribution platform, planned to empower artists big and small to profit from said intellectual property without being under the thumb of corporations or fighting one another under senseless infighting caused by bourgeois class warfare. The artist should not fight the artist over ownership of rights. The big artist should not see the small artist as a threat, nor should the small artist see the big artist as an obstacle to their own growth. Through mutual empowerment, both may prosper.

The Open Art Guild License

The Open Art Guild License is built upon the current Creative Commons 4.0 License. This license is irrevocable until the work qualifies for public domain according to all relevant legislations, provided that the artist remains a member of the Guild. In order to participate in the Guild, an artist shall follow the following precepts:

The artist shall only publish works under the OAG License that have licenses available to the public. This means public domain, open source, Creative Commons and works created by other members of the Guild. Works derived from privately owned media, such as fanart of intellectual properties not part of the Guild, shall be excluded from the Guild. If the artist did not have permission to use it before, or if the artist only has individual permission, the work will not qualify for Guild submission.

All works created under the OAG License shall be free to adapt, remix, or reuse for other projects, even commercially, provided that the artist doing so is also an active member of the Guild, that the projects derived from it are also under the OAG License, and that the artist follows through with their dues and obligations.

Whenever the format permits, the artist shall provide the assets used for the works in their raw form in a modular fashion, including colour palettes, sound assets, video footage, code, screenplays, subtitles, and any other elements used in the creation of their work, in order to facilitate their reuse and redistribution for the benefit of all other artists.

The artist waives their right to 30% of the total profit generated by works submitted to the guild, regardless of where it is published. This revenue shall be redistributed in the following manner:

10% shall be designated towards the maintenance of the Open Art Guild platform. In absence of a platform that follows the requirements to belong to the Guild, this percentage shall be donated towards a nonprofit organisation of their own choosing dedicated to the protection and distribution of art in any of its forms. Some examples may include Archive.org, Archive Of Our Own, Wikimedia, or your local art museum or community center. Proof of donation shall be made publicly available. The artist shall empower the Guild, as the Guild has empowered the artist.

10% shall be designated towards the Open Art Guild legal fund. In the absence of a fund dedicated to the protection of the OAG, this percentage shall be donated towards a nonprofit organisation dedicated to the protection of the legal rights of artists in any of their forms. Some examples may include Creative Commons, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Industrial Workers of the World, or another artist union like the WGA. Proof of donation shall be made publicly available. The artist shall protect the Guild, as the Guild shall protect the artist.

10% shall be designated towards the Open Art Guild creator fund. In the absence of a fund dedicated to redistribute the profits of the OAG, this percentage shall be donated to other members of the Guild, prioritising small creators. Alternatively, it may be directed towards the recruitment of new members to the Guild via donation and an invite. Proof of donation shall not be required, but the receiving artist(s) is(are) encouraged to declare in their own platform that the donation was received. The artist shall give to the Guild, as the Guild has given to the artist.

The artist shall continue to create Guild submissions for the duration of their membership, with a minimum of one submission per month in order to guarantee their continued support. The artist shall live off of labour, not property.

In return for these duties, the artist shall receive:

Permission to adapt, remix, or reuse any of the works in the Guild’s archive for their own derivative works, fan fiction, remixes, collages, or any sort of transformative application, provided dues and obligations are in order.

Protection of their intellectual property as part of the collective works of the Guild by the legal fund designated and sustained by all paying members, to prevent non Guild members from trying to exploit their works unauthorised.

If an artist strikes a deal for non-Guild adaptation, the proportional dues shall also be paid to the Guild fund and members by the non-Guild institution in charge. Said deal shall not be allowed an exclusivity clause, and all works derived from a Guild work shall follow through with their dues in perpetuity. If the non-Guild entity chooses to terminate the business relationship, all intellectual property rights over the adaptation shall irrevocably be granted to the Guild as compensation, guaranteeing the distribution to the creators and the legal fund, as well as the follow-through with whatever payment terms the Guild artist has agreed to.

No Guild artist shall prosecute another Guild artist for use of works under the OAG License, provided that the derivative work also follows the OAG License terms. If these terms are violated, amicable resolution shall be sought by both parties. If litigation becomes inevitable and compensation is required, said compensation will also require the 30% dues to fund the Guild and its members, no matter which way it sides. In no case shall an artist, Guild or non-Guild, be left without recourse.

If an artist becomes unable or unwilling to continue to pay their dues, the artist shall be given an option to suspend or cancel their membership. If a membership is suspended, the artist will be excluded from the creator fund until their dues are renewed. No compensation shall be required of the artist for the suspension period, and all protections other than the creator fund shall still apply. If a membership is cancelled, all works published by the artist under the OAG License shall automatically be granted a Creative Commons 4.0 License instead, in order to protect Guild members from litigation by non-Guild members.

Membership that has been cancelled shall be renewable at any time, provided that the former Guild artist has not engaged in predatory litigation against Guild member or the Guild itself. The Guild shall determine what constitutes predatory litigation on a case-by-case basis. Licenses that were lost during cancellation shall not be given back, as CC4.0 is irrevocable, but new works shall still qualify for OAG Licenses.

These protections shall not be conditional to the artist’s moral values or the content of the works created. All works that do not break the laws applicable to the jurisdiction from which they were submitted shall be treated with the same respect and granted the same rights and obligations, in perpetuity and throughout time and space within the known multiverse. The Guild shall not exist to police art, but to promote it.

Open Art Guild License Template

All submissions of Guild works and projects shall include the following legend, both in English and in the publication language when applicable. Point 4 may be omitted if the artist chooses not to submit the work for dataset training.

This work was created and published under the Open Art Guild license, and has been approved for reuse and adaptation under the following conditions:

For personal, educational and archival use, provided any derivative works also fall under a publicly open license, to all Guild members and non members.

For commercial use, provided redistribution guidelines of the Guild be followed, to all active Guild members.

For commercial use to non Guild members, provided any derivative works also fall under a publicly open license, with the explicit approval of the artist and proper redistribution of profit following the guidelines of the Guild.

For non commercial dataset training of open source generative art technologies, provided the explicit consent of the artist, proper credit and redistribution of profit in its entirety to the Guild.

Shall this work be appropriated by non Guild members without proper authorisation, credit and redistribution of profit, the non Guild entity waives their right to intellectual property over any derivative works, copyrights, trademarks or patents of any sort and cedes it to the Creative Commons, under the 4.0 license, irrevocably and unconditionally, in perpetuity, throughout time and space in the known multiverse. The Guild reserves the right to withhold trade relations with any known infractors for the duration its members deem appropriate, including the reversal of any currently standing contracts and agreements.

[scottrichmonder]

Best OSINT Courses - Open Source Intelligence Training - IMSL

OSINT training courses UK, approved by Ofqual. Enhance your skills with UK accredited Level 1 & Level 3 courses in Open Source Intelligence. https://www.intelmsl.com/osint-training/

[thursdayisbetterthanfriday]

Applied AI - Integrating AI With a Roomba

AKA. What have I been doing for the past month and a half

Everyone loves Roombas. Cats. People. Cat-people. There have been a number of Roomba hacks posted online over the years, but an often overlooked point is how very easy it is to use Roombas for cheap applied robotics projects.

Continuing on from a project done for academic purposes, today's showcase is a work in progress for a real-world application of Speech-to-text, actionable, transformer based AI models. MARVINA (Multimodal Artificial Robotics Verification Intelligence Network Application) is being applied, in this case, to this Roomba, modified with a Raspberry Pi 3B, a 1080p camera, and a combined mic and speaker system.

The hardware specifics have been a fun challenge over the past couple of months, especially relating to the construction of the 3D mounts for the camera and audio input/output system.

Roomba models are particularly well suited to tinkering - the serial connector allows the interface of external hardware - with iRobot (the provider company) having a full manual for commands that can be sent to the Roomba itself. It can even play entire songs! (Highly recommend)

Scope:

Current:

The aim of this project is to, initially, replicate the verbal command system which powers the current virtual environment based system.

This has been achieved with the custom MARVINA AI system, which is interfaced with both the Pocket Sphinx Speech-To-Text (SpeechRecognition · PyPI) and Piper-TTS Text-To-Speech (GitHub - rhasspy/piper: A fast, local neural text to speech system) AI systems. This gives the AI the ability to do one of 8 commands, give verbal output, and use a limited-training version of the emotional-empathy system.

This has mostly been achieved. Now that I know it's functional I can now justify spending money on a better microphone/speaker system so I don't have to shout at the poor thing!

The latency time for the Raspberry PI 3B for each output is a very spritely 75ms! This allows for plenty of time between the current AI input "framerate" of 500ms.

Future - Software:

Subsequent testing will imbue the Roomba with a greater sense of abstracted "emotion" - the AI having a ground set of emotional state variables which decide how it, and the interacting person, are "feeling" at any given point in time.

This, ideally, is to give the AI system a sense of motivation. The AI is essentially being given separate drives for social connection, curiosity and other emotional states. The programming will be designed to optimise for those, while the emotional model will regulate this on a seperate, biologically based, system of under and over stimulation.

In other words, a motivational system that incentivises only up to a point.

The current system does have a system implemented, but this only has very limited testing data. One of the key parts of this project's success will be to generatively create a training data set which will allow for high-quality interactions.

The future of MARVINA-R will be relating to expanding the abstracted equivalent of "Theory-of-Mind". - In other words, having MARVINA-R "imagine" a future which could exist in order to consider it's choices, and what actions it wishes to take.

This system is based, in part, upon the Dyna-lang model created by Lin et al. 2023 at UC Berkley ([2308.01399] Learning to Model the World with Language (arxiv.org)) but with a key difference - MARVINA-R will be running with two neural networks - one based on short-term memory and the second based on long-term memory. Decisions will be made based on which is most appropriate, and on how similar the current input data is to the generated world-model of each model.

Once at rest, MARVINA-R will effectively "sleep", essentially keeping the most important memories, and consolidating them into the long-term network if they lead to better outcomes.

This will allow the system to be tailored beyond its current limitations - where it can be designed to be motivated by multiple emotional "pulls" for its attention.

This does, however, also increase the number of AI outputs required per action (by a magnitude of about 10 to 100) so this will need to be carefully considered in terms of the software and hardware requirements.

Results So Far:

Here is the current prototyping setup for MARVINA-R. As of a couple of weeks ago, I was able to run the entire RaspberryPi and applied hardware setup and successfully interface with the robot with the components disconnected.

I'll upload a video of the final stage of initial testing in the near future - it's great fun!

The main issues really do come down to hardware limitations. The microphone is a cheap ~$6 thing from Amazon and requires you to shout at the poor robot to get it to do anything! The second limitation currently comes from outputting the text-to-speech, which does have a time lag from speaking to output of around 4 seconds. Not terrible, but also can be improved.

To my mind, the proof of concept has been created - this is possible. Now I can justify further time, and investment, for better parts and for more software engineering!

[continuations]

AI Safety Between Scylla and Charybdis and an Unpopular Way Forward

I am unabashedly a technology optimist. For me, however, that means making choices for how we will get the best out of technology for the good of humanity, while limiting its negative effects. With technology becoming ever more powerful there is a huge premium on getting this right as the downsides now include existential risk.

Let me state upfront that I am super excited about progress in AI and what it can eventually do for humanity if we get this right. We could be building the capacity to turn Earth into a kind of garden of Eden, where we get out of the current low energy trap and live in a World After Capital.

At the same time there are serious ways of getting this wrong, which led me to write a few posts about AI risks earlier this year. Since then the AI safety debate has become more heated with a fair bit of low-rung tribalism thrown into the mix. To get a glimpse of this one merely needs to look at the wide range of reactions to the White House Executive Order on Safe, Secure and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence. This post is my attempt to point out what I consider to be serious flaws in the thinking of two major camps on AI safety and to mention an unpopular way forward.

First, let’s talk about the “AI safety is for wimps” camp, which comes in two forms. One is the happy-go-lucky view represented by Marc Andreessen’s “Techno-Optimist Manifesto” and also his preceding Tweet thread. This view dismisses critics who dare to ask social or safety questions as luddites and shills.

So what’s the problem with this view? Dismissing AI risks doesn’t actually make them go away. And it is extremely clear that at this moment in time we are not really set up to deal with the problems. On the structural risk side we are already at super extended income and wealth inequality. And the recent AI advances have already been shown to further accelerate this discrepancy.

On the existential risk side, there is recent work by Kevin Esvelt et al. showing how LLMs can broaden access to pandemic agents. Jeffrey Ladish et. al. demonstrating how cheap it is to remove safety training from an open source model with published weights. This type of research clearly points out that as open source models become rapidly more powerful they can be leveraged for very bad things and that it continues to be super easy to strip away the safeguards that people claim can be built into open source models.

This is a real problem. And people like myself, who have strongly favored permissionless innovation, would do well to acknowledge it and figure out how to deal with it. I have a proposal for how to do that below.

But there is one intellectually consistent way to continue full steam ahead that is worth mentioning. Marc Andreessen cites Nick Land as an inspiration for his views. Land in Meltdown wrote the memorable line “Nothing human makes it out of the near-future”. Embracing AI as a path to a post-human future is the view embraced by the e/acc movement. Here AI risks aren’t so much dismissed as simply accepted as the cost of progress. My misgiving with this view is that I love humanity and believe we should do our utmost to preserve it (my next book which I have started to work on will have a lot more to say about this).

Second, let’s consider the “We need AI safety regulation now” camp, which again has two subtypes. One is “let regulated companies carry on” and the other is “stop everything now.” Again both of these have deep problems.

The idea that we can simply let companies carry on with some relatively mild regulation suffers from three major deficiencies. First, this has the risk of leading us down the path toward highly concentrated market power and we have seen the problems of this in tech again and again (it has been a long standing topic on my blog). For AI market power will be particularly pernicious because this technology will eventually power everything around us and so handing control to a few corporations is a bad idea. Second, the incentives of for-profit companies aren’t easily aligned with safety (and yes, I include OpenAI here even though it has in theory capped investor returns but also keeps raising money at ever higher valuations, so what’s the point?).

But there is an even deeper third deficiency of this approach and it is best illustrated by the second subtype which essentially wants to stop all progress. At its most extreme this is a Ted Kaczynsci anti technology vision. The problem with this of course is that it requires equipping governments with extraordinary power to prevent open source / broadly accessible technology from being developed. And this is an incredible unacknowledged implication of much of the current pro-regulation camp.

Let me just give a couple of examples. It has long been argued that code is speech and hence protected by first amendment rights. We can of course go back and revisit what protections should be applicable to “code as speech,” but the proponents of the “let regulated companies go ahead with closed source AI” don’t seem to acknowledge that they are effectively asking governments to suppress what can be published as open source (otherwise, why bother at all?). Over time government would have to regulate technology development ever harder to sustain this type of regulated approach. Faster chips? Government says who can buy them. New algorithms? Government says who can access them. And so on. Sure, we have done this in some areas before, such as nuclear bomb research, but these were narrow fields, whereas AI is a general purpose technology that affects all of computation.

So this is the conundrum. Dismissing AI safety (Scylla) only makes sense if you go full on post humanist because the risks are real. Calling for AI safety through oversight (Charybdis) doesn’t acknowledge that way too much government power is required to sustain this approach.

Is there an alternative option? Yes but it is highly unpopular and also hard to get to from here. In fact I believe we can only get there if we make lots of other changes, which together could take us from the Industrial Age to what I call the Knowledge Age. For more on that you can read my book The World After Capital.

For several years now I have argued that technological progress and privacy are incompatible. The reason for this is entropy, which means that our ability to destroy will always grow faster than our ability to (re)build. I gave a talk about it at the Stacks conference in Berlin in 2018 (funny side note: I spoke right after Edward Snowden gave a full throated argument for privacy) and you can read a fuller version of the argument in my book.

The only solution other than draconian government is to embrace a post privacy world. A world in which it can easily be discovered that you are building a super dangerous bio weapon in your basement before you have succeeded in releasing it. In this kind of world we can have technological progress but also safeguard humanity – in part by using aligned super intelligences to detect what is happening. And yes, I believe it is possible to create versions of AGI that have deep inner alignment with humanity that cannot easily be removed. Extremely hard yes, but possible (more on this in upcoming posts on an initiative in this direction).

Now you might argue that a post privacy world also requires extraordinary state power but that's not really the case. I grew up in a small community where if you didn't come out of your house for a day, the neighbors would check in to make sure you were OK. Observability does not require state power per se. Much of this can happen simply if more information is default public. And so regulation ought to aim at increased disclosure.

We are of course a long way away from a world where most information about us could be default public. It will require massive changes from where we are today to better protect people from the consequences of disclosure. And those changes would eventually have to happen everywhere that people can freely have access to powerful technology (with other places opting for draconian government control instead). 

Given that the transition which I propose is hard and will take time, what do I believe we should do in the short run? I believe that a great starting point would be disclosure requirements covering training inputs, cost of training runs, and powered by (i.e. if you launch say a therapy service that uses AI you need to disclose which models). That along with mandatory API access could start to put some checks on market power. As for open source models I believe a temporary voluntary moratorium on massively larger more capable models is vastly preferable to any government ban. This has a chance of success because there are relatively few organizations in the world that have the resources to train the next generation of potentially open source models. 

Most of all though we need to have a more intellectually honest conversation about risks and how to mitigate them without introducing even bigger problems. We cannot keep suggesting that these are simple questions and that people must pick a side and get on with it.

[tilbageidanmark]

Not real!

[arctixout]

I'm gonna warn yall beforehand that I've been doing nothing but archeological excavations on Instagram and I found some good videos from the Nordic tour so gif spam to follow tomorrow

[mysocial8onetech]

Learn how Qwen2.5-Coder is revolutionizing code generation with training data of 5.5 trillion tokens and support for 92 languages. This open-source model excels in benchmarks like HumanEval and MultiPL-E, offering advanced code intelligence and long-context support up to 128K tokens. Discover its capabilities and how it outperforms other models.