EpicAglet's recent activity
-
Comment on Grok AI generates images of ‘minors in minimal clothing’ in ~tech
-
Comment on Grok AI generates images of ‘minors in minimal clothing’ in ~tech
EpicAglet Link ParentIt has teeth. It just leaves them on the nightstand at timesI wish we had an administration with some teeth.
It has teeth. It just leaves them on the nightstand at times
-
Comment on Falling price of cocaine forces drug traffickers to reuse narco-submarines, say Spanish police in ~finance
EpicAglet (edited )Link ParentBut then it doesn't really add up right? If your cargo is worth 60 mil, I can't imagine that they operate on such thin margins that the 600k is worth it. So if they are reusing these submarines...But then it doesn't really add up right? If your cargo is worth 60 mil, I can't imagine that they operate on such thin margins that the 600k is worth it.
So if they are reusing these submarines now, then either it's not because of the low prices at all or there is a part of the explanation still missing.
The article does briefly mention that they now refill the sub at sea. I wonder if it's more to do with that. That they now use a much bigger boat to transport it and only use the sub to bring it ashore. Then the point is that the load effectively just becomes much higher. Alternatively, you'd build bigger subs but perhaps that is technically challenging.
-
Comment on Airbus issues major A320 recall after flight-control incident in ~transport
EpicAglet LinkGlad they do this pro-actively. Intense solar radiation being able to corrupt data sounds like something that isn't likely to cause an accident but could. So it sounds to me like they are taking...Glad they do this pro-actively.
Intense solar radiation being able to corrupt data sounds like something that isn't likely to cause an accident but could. So it sounds to me like they are taking safety seriously.
-
Comment on Why humanity needs a Lunar seed vault in ~space
EpicAglet Link ParentI imagine it's less for a case of societal collapse but more for some catastrophe that somehow compromises the seed vaults on Earth. Some species of plants could end up extinct in that case, but...I imagine it's less for a case of societal collapse but more for some catastrophe that somehow compromises the seed vaults on Earth. Some species of plants could end up extinct in that case, but regular Lunar missions would then still be a thing. I guess this would mostly involve rare plant species.
It seems to me that the article tries to convince us that even the Svalbard vault is not as safe as we'd think and we are relying more and more on the seed vaults.
I like the idea, but it'll depend on how permanent the proposed moon base will actually be and how expensive such a Lunar seed vault would end up being.
-
Comment on Boeing's Starliner to return to ISS in cargo-only capacity for now in ~space
EpicAglet LinkIt still amazes me how far that company has fallen. You'd think that even if the commercial jets have some problems these days that the other parts of the company are unaffected, but it seems like...It still amazes me how far that company has fallen. You'd think that even if the commercial jets have some problems these days that the other parts of the company are unaffected, but it seems like no part of the company was spared. Is Boeing still good at anything at all?
-
Comment on AGI and Fermi's Paradox in ~science
EpicAglet Link ParentMaybe. I too feel like we are near a plateau with regards to the LLMs, so you might be right. At the same time, I'm not sure where you would go from there without more human produced data. Perhaps...Maybe. I too feel like we are near a plateau with regards to the LLMs, so you might be right. At the same time, I'm not sure where you would go from there without more human produced data. Perhaps obtained from the data the users feed it (which is probably already happening). I suppose that is similar to how humans learn, through interaction only on a larger scale.
But indeed that is assuming the core technology resembles the neural networks we are using now. Perhaps the tech would be fundamentally different if it ever will exist like you are suggesting. Then of course I agree. It might not resemble humans at all.
I was more thinking more of the idea of an LLM on steroids, since this is the context in which AGI is often discussed nowadays. The Silicon Valley companies seem to be pushing the idea that this is possible. Whether this is the case I think at minimum is highly speculative, and probably they just say that because it helps their stock price, but right now it's the closest thing we got.
Ultimately I hope we can agree that it just depends on how the tech works. If it is somehow more algorithmic and programmed, then it will be like you are sketching. If it is techology that somehow "learns", then it is a lot harder to predict and I believe it could develop to become more similar to humans.
Whether one scenario is more likely than the other I personally find hard to predict. Right now neural networks seem like the most likely route by far, but perhaps they can never get there. At the same time I don't know of any other technology that could.
So at that point the question becomes whether it is more likely that we can invent some way to make the current AI technology into an AGI, or that we can develop something completely different entirely to that end. Either way we are probably counting on some highly speculative technological leap. But then at least LLMs have the advantage that a lot of people are trying it and there's a lot of money available for it. Though I do agree that just scaling LLMs is probably not enough.
-
Comment on AGI and Fermi's Paradox in ~science
EpicAglet Link ParentI'm also of course wildly speculating, since that is all we can really do at this point. But under the assumption that human generated data is still an important factor, I can imagine that then an...I'm also of course wildly speculating, since that is all we can really do at this point.
But under the assumption that human generated data is still an important factor, I can imagine that then an AGI might learn to not always be completely rational. Even highly intelligent people can sometimes be like that, so I am not certain that would dissappear if it becomes more capable.
If you assume human generated data stops being a factor somehow, and that data is completely "clean" of irrational behavior. Then I agree.
I like challenging the scifi trope of perfectly logical superintelligence, because I think it need not necessarily be like that. The way I see it that depends on the technical implementation.
All of that is of course assuming we ever build such a system in the first place, but it's fun to think about. Maybe someone should write a story where the all-powerful AI starts mimicking human emotions, if someone did not already. Would make for an interesting take on the trope.
-
Comment on AGI and Fermi's Paradox in ~science
EpicAglet Link ParentThough perhaps the idea that an AGI has motivations similar to people is not unexpected. If it is trained on data produced by people, maybe it will not actually be so different in that regardThough perhaps the idea that an AGI has motivations similar to people is not unexpected. If it is trained on data produced by people, maybe it will not actually be so different in that regard
-
Comment on What's a quantum computer? in ~tech
EpicAglet (edited )Link ParentYou're thinking in the right direction. The best insulating material in existence is no material. So in a way it's all insulation indeed. There's typically a few things that can be around this...You're thinking in the right direction. The best insulating material in existence is no material. So in a way it's all insulation indeed.
There's typically a few things that can be around this chandelier, like a superconducting magnet like in MRIs, but for this the main thing is just a vacuum can.
So the chandelier is not lowered into anything, but we place a metal shell around it. This shell is only attached at the top and we make sure the can does not touch any other part, as that would ruin the insulation. Then we use a vacuum pump to get rid of all the air inside. This makes it very hard for heat to get to the lowest part of the fridge.
The actual cooling is already in there. This is one with way fewer cables, so you can actually see some of the essential parts. The thin things that loop are the coax cables. On the left you can see the parts used to cool the thing. This fridge has no quantum chip in it, but normally that would be below the lowest plate.
So if you would see one in use in a lab, all you'd see is some metal can suspended from the ceiling that makes noises that sound like it's from a sci-fi movie due to the gasses being pumped around.
-
Comment on What's a quantum computer? in ~tech
EpicAglet Link ParentYou're close, but not completely right. The probabilistic nature of measuring quantum states is a curse more than a blessing. The speedup comes from the fact that it is both |0> and |1> at the...You're close, but not completely right. The probabilistic nature of measuring quantum states is a curse more than a blessing.
The speedup comes from the fact that it is both |0> and |1> at the same time, before you read it out. This in and of itself is not so useful, but it becomes useful ones you have multiple of these qubits. Once you do operations where you do something to one qubit, conditional on the state of another qubit the mathematics become much richer than just probabilistic states. We call the result entanglement.
This is hard to simulate on a classical (meaning normal everyday digital) computer. And if you can make your calculation exploit this, it is sometimes possible to get a ridiculous speedup. To the point where a classical computer might take a billion years, but a sufficiently powerful quantum computer a few hours.
The probabilistic nature of the measurement however means you need to do the same calculation many times to gather statistics. But the improvement is still ridiculous despite this in some cases.
For home computing, in principle typical quantum computers can do all the same maths a classical computer can as well but without any advantage. In practice however, making a quantum computer that can rival even some of the weakest CPUs in regular computations seems ridiculous. So most will agree that they will never replace classical computers entirely.
Shrinking it to the point where it can be a co-processor to me seems unlikely as well. At least viewed through the lens of what it requires these days. The cryogenic setup alone is unfeasible to have at home, even if you shrink it somehow. That limits you to things that work at room temperature and then the options get very slim.
If people will use quantum computers in their daily life, if expect it to be via the cloud. And the actual quantum computer would be sitting in a datacenter somewhere. We are already experimenting with this a bit these days.
-
Comment on What's a quantum computer? in ~tech
EpicAglet Link ParentThe chandelier is called a dilution refrigerator. The brass plates are what is being cooled and every plate below is colder than the one above it. At the very top, the fridge is room temperature....The chandelier is called a dilution refrigerator. The brass plates are what is being cooled and every plate below is colder than the one above it. At the very top, the fridge is room temperature. Hence why it is suspended from the ceiling.
The metal spaghetti for lack of a better term, are coax cables. The actual quantum processor is on the very bottom. You can't really see it in the picture, but that's where the cables go.
Normally there are still some layers of metal that go around this whole contraption and then we pump it to a vacuum. So you can never really see the chandelier unless we are changing some part of the setup.
It indeed looks like this because of the cooling. The coldest part needs to be down due to gravity, and the temperature drops in stages. Combine that with a load of wires and one ends up with this thing.
Though the one in the picture is a particularly big one, most labs have smaller chandeliers. Iirc that is one of the Google setups.
-
Comment on Thieves steal crown jewels in four minutes from Louvre Museum in Paris in ~arts
EpicAglet Link ParentI think they should guard them well. The cultural value of these things imo far exceeds the monetary value, and they are irreplaceable. But we should still allow the public to view them. I would...I think they should guard them well. The cultural value of these things imo far exceeds the monetary value, and they are irreplaceable. But we should still allow the public to view them.
I would never go to a museum that only shows replicas. The way I see it then I might as well look up a picture online and save myself the trip.
I also question how much value there is in holding it for future study. At that point you're holding out for technological progress unveiling something new. This has happened a lot with paintings, sure. We are now able to analyse all the layers underneath the painting, including whole new drawings, or analyse the individual pigments. But at some point what else could you possibly want to know about a painting that you can never actually see? What is there still left to do here that they can't study on a replica themselves?
What point is there in preserving it if there's nothing to preserve it for.
That way you are taking it away from the public and keeping it for only a handful of elites to look at. The peasants get pictures.
It should be guarded and preserved very well. But in a place where the general public can come and view it. What is the point of art if not to look at it?
-
Comment on What's a quantum computer? in ~tech
EpicAglet Link ParentThey do exist. I work on one every day as it is what my PhD is on. And Shor's algorithm indeed is supposed to break a lot of public key encryption schemes, but currently we are far from actually...They do exist. I work on one every day as it is what my PhD is on.
And Shor's algorithm indeed is supposed to break a lot of public key encryption schemes, but currently we are far from actually doing this. This is also one that people like to bring up since it is easy to understand the impact of it, but probably is not the most important use.
Generally there are certain computational problems that a quantum computer is much much better at than a classical computer.
For me the most interesting thing is the original idea. I'll try my best to explain even though I'm a bit drunk rn. Way back when the idea of building a quantum computers became a thing, it was Richard Feynman that showed that is was impossible for classical (normal everyday) computers to efficiently simulate quantum mechanics. Naively one may think this is only some vague fundamental research thing. But the consequences of it in reality are quite far reaching. These days quantum mechanics pop in every day technology.
We use quantum mechanics to understand chemistry, material science, semiconductors, certain branches of biology etc. A quantum computer would make things that are not simulatable for these fields right now suddenly possible. And major breakthroughs could be expected. Even applications for machine learning and AI are expected.
Currently the field is thinking more along the lines of using it similar to how researchers use supercomputing clusters. Not so much personal computers. So this would be useful for big research institutions and companies, less for individuals.
The way we build quantum computers now it is unrealistic to expect this to be in your house (though maybe via the cloud?). But who knows. Nobody really knows yet what a utility scale fault-tolerant quantum computer would look like. So ask me again in a few years.
-
Comment on 2025 Physics Nobel awarded to three scientists for work on quantum computing (in the 1980s) in ~science
EpicAglet Link ParentEinstein got it for the photoelectric effect. Never for relativity.Einstein got it for the photoelectric effect. Never for relativity.
-
Comment on 2025 Physics Nobel awarded to three scientists for work on quantum computing (in the 1980s) in ~science
EpicAglet Link ParentI can comment since I work in the field. Nobel prizes are awarded according to the principle "for the greatest benefit to humankind". Quantum computing, while it holds great promise, is currently...I can comment since I work in the field.
Nobel prizes are awarded according to the principle "for the greatest benefit to humankind". Quantum computing, while it holds great promise, is currently still completely and utterly useless. Awarding a Nobel prize for that would be incredibly premature and they don't like to do that so they chose something earlier.
-
Comment on EA is reportedly about to be sold in a record-setting $50 billion buyout to an investor group that includes private equity and Saudi Arabia in ~games
EpicAglet LinkFinancial Times (Archive) claims that this is a big bet on AI reducing operating costs. And that since this is partly financed using a loan with EA itself as collateral, EA is on the hook for...Financial Times (Archive) claims that this is a big bet on AI reducing operating costs. And that since this is partly financed using a loan with EA itself as collateral, EA is on the hook for servicing this new debt.
My fear is that the debt will make EA even more wary of investing in new IP, and poor use of AI will kill whatever they still have.
-
Comment on Dark patterns killed my wife's Windows 11 installation in ~tech
EpicAglet Link ParentThe blood gets everywhere and is bad for the electronicsThe blood gets everywhere and is bad for the electronics
-
Comment on Dark patterns killed my wife's Windows 11 installation in ~tech
EpicAglet Link ParentI agree. There's the quote "the best network software security measures can be rendered useless if you fail to physically protect your systems" by Michael Meyers. The consensus in the computer...I agree. There's the quote "the best network software security measures can be rendered useless if you fail to physically protect your systems" by Michael Meyers.
The consensus in the computer security community seems to be that it's very hard to protect a system against an attacker that has physical access to it. Precisely because of things like this.
-
Comment on Could a space traveler accelerate at 1g forever? in ~space
EpicAglet (edited )Link ParentIt's a very cool idea. Though in the real world I can't imagine it helping. Admittedly I don't know the book. But if you collect the hydrogen you still get momentum transfer from the hydrogen to...It's a very cool idea.
Though in the real world I can't imagine it helping. Admittedly I don't know the book.
But if you collect the hydrogen you still get momentum transfer from the hydrogen to the spaceship, only now you need it to stop moving in the spaceship's reference frame. This would make the problem only worse than if you'd just let it slam into the front. It would still be bombarding your spaceship, wrecking and cooking it as well as slowing it down. You end up paying the insanely large kinetic energy cost of the particles, to only gain a bit of energy from the fusion. Not worth it.
My guess is that if you make the spaceship even remotely "aerodynamic", you gain more than trying to use it as fuel.
Unless you can somehow make the particles keep its kinetic energy. But that would involve redirecting it from the front to the back in a way that is energetically efficient. So you'd need to teleport it into the engine without touching it or something like that. But that is possible, then you've already solved the problem. If you then still have the ambition to use it as fuel, you somehow have to make fusion happen between particles that are moving basically at light speed in the same direction. If that is not hard enough in and of itself, the time you have to make it happen will be a tiny fraction of a second because light speed.
This is so deep into the science fiction, I doubt such a technology could ever exist. No matter how long a civilization lasts. Or at least that is so far into the future that they may have some completely different way of solving this, beyond anything we'd think of today.
The world is absurd like that.
What amazes me is that people elect this guy that became famous by being an ass on television. Then they act surprised when it turns out this guy is in fact an ass.
Or when he was caught on camera saying he grabs women by the pussy and was known to be a creep while owning child and teen beauty pageants. And then again people are surprised when he turns out to be a pedo.
Or that a guy known for tax evasion and shady business practices that only enriches himself might not be the guy you want to "drain the swamp". He loves the swamp so much he can tell Shrek get out of HIS swamp.
Or that a guy that went bankrupt not once, not twice but on six different occasions, might not have the best idea of good economic policy.