canadaduane

joined 2 years ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

theinternet.com

[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

It's tricky. There is code involved, and the code is open source. There is a neural net involved, and it is released as open weights. The part that is not available is the "input" that went into the training. This seems to be a common way in which models are released as both "open source" and "open weights", but you wouldn't necessarily be able to replicate the outcome with $5M or whatever it takes to train the foundation model, since you'd have to guess about what they used as their input training corpus.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

I see. Yeah, I agree with you there.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago (5 children)

I think you're right circa a few years ago. However, as someone working in AI, I don't think it is true any longer. I'm not saying the substack article is legit, btw, just that the fulcrum has shifted--fewer people can now do much more, aided by algorithms and boosted by AI system prompts. Especially if it's a group internal to a company that has database access etc.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

I do work with LLMs, and I respect your opinion. I suspect if we could meet and chat for an hour, we'd understand each other better.

But despite the bad, I also see a great deal of good that can come from LLMs, and AI in general. I appreciated what Sal Khan (Khan Academy) had to say about the big picture view:

There's folks who take a more pessimistic view of AI, they say this is scary, there's all these dystopian scenarios, we maybe want to slow down, we want to pause. On the other side, there are the more optimistic folks that say, well, we've gone through inflection points before, we've gone through the Industrial Revolution. It was scary, but it all kind of worked out.

And what I'd argue right now is I don't think this is like a flip of a coin or this is something where we'll just have to, like, wait and see which way it turns out. I think everyone here and beyond, we are active participants in this decision. I'm pretty convinced that the first line of reasoning is actually almost a self-fulfilling prophecy, that if we act with fear and if we say, "Hey, we've just got to stop doing this stuff," what's really going to happen is the rule followers might pause, might slow down, but the rule breakers--as Alexander [Wang] mentioned--the totalitarian governments, the criminal organizations, they're only going to accelerate. And that leads to what I am pretty convinced is the dystopian state, which is the good actors have worse AIs than the bad actors.

https://www.ted.com/talks/sal_khan_how_ai_could_save_not_destroy_education?subtitle=en

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

My daughter (15f) is an artist and I work at an AI company as a software engineer. We've had a lot of interesting debates. Most recently, she defined Art this way:

"Art is protest against automation."

We thought of some examples:

  • when cave artists made paintings in caves, perhaps they were in a sense protesting the automatic forces of nature that would have washed or eroded away their paintings if they had not sought out caves. By painting something that could outlast themselves, perhaps they wished to express, "I am here!"
  • when manufacturing and economic factors made kitsch art possible (cheap figurines, mass reprints, etc.), although more people had access to "art" there was also a sense of loss and blandness, like maybe now that we can afford art, this isn't art, actually?
  • when computers can produce images that look beautiful in some way or another, maybe this pushes the artist within each of us to find new ground where economic reproducibility can't reach, and where we can continue the story of protest where originality can stake a claim on the ever-unfolding nature of what it means to be human.

I defined Economics this way:

"Economics is the automation of what nature does not provide."

An example:

  • long ago, nature automated the creation of apples. People picked free apples, and there was no credit card machine. But humans wanted more apples, and more varieties of apples, and tastier varieties that nature wouldn't make soon enough. So humans created jobs--someone to make apple varieties faster than nature, and someone to plant more apple trees than nature, and someone to pick all of the apples that nature was happy to let rot on the ground as part of its slow orchard re-planting process.

Jobs are created in one of two ways: either by destroying the ability to automatically create things (destroying looms, maybe), or by making people want new things (e.g. the creation of jobs around farming Eve Online Interstellar Kredits). Whenever an artist creates something new that has value, an investor will want to automate its creation.

Where Art and Economics fight is over automation: Art wants to find territory that cannot be automated. Economics wants to discover ways to efficiently automate anything desirable. As long as humans live in groups, I suppose this cycle does not have an end.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

Recently met with my local pastor to see how we could include kids/teens in community programs that intersect with the church. One of the major hurdles is that kids have new expectations around how to meet up--especially online--and the few touch points during the week are in person only. Trying to find ways to meet people where they're at. It was a good first meeting, although she (the pastor) is not tech savvy, so I expect we'll have a few more conversations before we find a good way forward.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Thanks for posting this. I am 4th gen since my family (i.e. great grandfather) served in a war.

I think generations that have not gone through war have a hard time recognizing war-induced inter-generational trauma, since it's often the case that men who went through that hell didn't want to bring it home and talk about it, for various reasons (e.g. PTSD, shame, thoughtfulness).

Their behaviors might have caused kids and grand-kids to suffer (e.g. physical abuse, emotional abuse), but those kids might not understand why their dad, grandpa, etc. behaved the way he did, so maybe the source of the problem gets buried and forgotten.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

My first thought was "I need nature". But within the constraint of a densely populated city, it's inspiring.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago

Because their creators allowed them to ponder and speculate about it.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Unpopular opinion: It's time to bring back church.

No algorithms controlling you; locally based and strengthens community; a broad spectrum of rich and poor meeting and being seen; opportunities to care and be cared about on a weekly basis; opportunities to develop social skills and to really make an impact in your community based on social missions like food banks and myriad activities. Plus, you meet people not because you want to change their minds, but because they're just there, trying to be better people. And then once in a while, good conversations turn into minds changed.

Context: I used to be Mormon and left because I no longer believed, but I now see a hell of a lot of good in church, as long as it isn't a control freak over your life and sense of self.

 

I enjoy writing in a journal. I don't do it every day like I used to, but I do it frequently when going through emotionally intense periods of life. This seems to be a healthy balance for me--use the skill when it is most useful.

This started me thinking--is journaling also beneficial for those near us? For example, does listing out or even working through feelings in a journal also help us to take things less personally, perhaps? Or to be able to hear someone out without needing to interject our story?

(Ostensibly, because we've already had a chance to "write our story down" somewhere, almost like we are hearing ourselves out?)

1
Emotion Fixing (www.family-institute.org)
 

The Family Institute at Northwestern University has a "tip of the month" newsletter for couples that I receive in my email inbox. I liked this one:

Trying to fix emotions, example 1:

  • Partner One: “I feel really discouraged today…”
  • Partner Two: “Come take a walk with me, it’s a really beautiful day out.”

Trying to fix emotions, example 2:

  • Partner One: “I’m so frustrated with the people at work, they spend all day complaining.”
  • Partner Two: “You should just quit, we can get by on my salary for a while.”

Trying to fix emotions, example 3:

  • Partner One: “We never hear from the kids. It bothers me that they don’t call once in a while to see how we are.”
  • Partner Two: “They’re busy with their own lives. You shouldn’t let it bother you, it’s not that big a deal.”

See the pattern? These are examples of the three most common ways we try to change — or fix — our partner’s negative emotions. In the first example, Partner Two suggests looking on the bright side as a way of lifting one’s spirits. In the second example, Partner Two becomes Mister or Miss Fixit, offering unsolicited advice that they hope will provide relief. In the third example, Partner Two admonishes his partner for feeling the way she does. Each response invalidates what Partners One are feeling; each fails, in its own way, to acknowledge through empathic listening the negative emotion that’s being expressed. That failure leaves Partners One feeling alone and without a sense of being seen and heard by the one person they most wish would understand them (see Empathy Advantage).

Why is emotion-fixing so common? In part, we never learned that empathic listening is the far superior way to respond to a partner’s distress. The skill of empathic listening doesn’t come to us naturally; it’s something that’s learned either through formal instruction (view the short videos below) or by watching it modeled by the people around us. On a deeper level, emotion-fixing is something we do because emotional pain tends to be contagious and we ourselves don’t want to feel badly. Our brains are wired, through mirror neurons, to feel what others are feeling, whether positive or negative. Without realizing it, we protect ourselves from slipping into a negative place by trying to help — to “fix”— our partner’s painful emotions.

The skill of empathic listening strengthens all our relationships, whether it’s with our primary partner, our children, or our friends. Few experiences promote a stronger bond between people than feeling seen and heard in our emotions. The skill applies across all age groups (although we may choose different words depending on whom we’re talking to). Watch how empathic listening is used by the parents in the short videos below and try it with your partner the next time you hear even the smallest expression of negative emotion.

 

My father-in-law told us both when we were married: "Remember that sometimes you will be a friend to one another, and other times you will be a parent. Everyone needs to cry like a child sometimes."

Do you have any advice that you've been given that helped you be a better partner?

 

This short presentation by Paul Chappell changed me. He outlines how unmet human needs can translate into the social disorders that we face today--things like school shootings, and depression. His personal story is one of "nearly becoming the bad guy" in a school shooting, followed by years serving in the military, and then finding his calling as a peace advocate.

 

One of the most influential books in my life is Nonviolent Communication. I'd like to summarize why its concepts are so powerful to me.

At the core of it is a beautiful understanding of the human spirit and condition--and a reassuring observation that we as human beings are very similar on the inside, even if culturally or historically unique in our traumas.

Rosenberg identifies that our cross-cultural, shared humanity is linked through feelings. These basic feelings are universal and can be understood universally--feelings like embarrassment, joy, fear, anger, etc. He emphasizes that he is talking about the most basic of feelings, not the higher level judgment-laden feelings that may be difficult to hear or understand ("I feel like you lied to me" is not a basic feeling, but something like "I feel angry" probably is).

He also identifies that feelings arise when we have unmet needs. There are shared human needs--he offers many examples, such as the need for security, the need for stability, the need for dignity, etc. These shared human needs can also act as a kind of "translation map" to understand people different from ourselves.

This is the essence of nonviolent communication: If we are willing, we can offer to describe the reality of our feelings to others--and the needs we perceive--and others will often (but not always) respond by trying to fulfill our needs.

The practice of communicating nonviolently allows us to exist with dignity in the world and respond to each others needs. This offers an alternative to coercion & violence, and their cumulative ill effects on individuals and society at large.

 

"Hi, I am currently creating a gtk theme. Honestly I'm new to this, and I really don't know where to find information about this kind of thing, I want to post it once I finish it on github, I don't know whether to make this a project. or not, so I want to give something quality and finished when I get to post it. I must say that it is based on colloid and therefore on catppuccine. That's it, and yes. I still owe you the pop!_os I made."

Original: https://www.reddit.com/r/pop_os/comments/1643bob/my_theme/

 

Incredibly, running a local LLM (large language model) on just the CPU is possible with Llama.cpp!— however, it can be pretty slow. I get about 1 token every 2 seconds with a 34 billion parameter model on an 11th gen Intel framework laptop with 64GB of RAM.

I have an external Nvidia GPU connected to my Pop!_OS laptop, and I’ve used the following technique to successfully compile Llama.cpp to use clblast (a BLAS adapter library) to speed up various LLMs (such as codellama-34b.Q4_K_M.gguf). As a rough estimate, the speed-up I get is about 5x on my Nvidia 3080 TI.

Here's how to compile Llama.cpp inside a docker container on Pop!_OS.

 

Our new, not yet released Rust-based desktop environment for Pop!_OS and other Linux distros is filling out with some essential systems that cater the DE to both users and developers alike. Customization is one of our main focuses for COSMIC, and was a huge focus for us in August, too.

 

I like to have easy access to an offline dictionary via the Pop Launcher (Super key, followed by "define ").

You can install this dictionary/launcher plugin like so:

curl -sSf https://raw.githubusercontent.com/canadaduane/pop-dictionary/main/install.sh | sh

Then try tapping the Super key (e.g. Windows key, or whatever gets you into your Launcher overlay) then type "define awesome" and you should see the GoldenDict entry for "awesome" pop up.

Hope you enjoy!

view more: ‹ prev next ›