I am opposed to systems that create oppression and injustice. Taylor Swift had fuck-all to do with creating any of that.

She benefits from it, sure, and she shouldn’t. But targeting her as the problem just feels like the vicious habit of just targeting the weakest example you can think of and pretending that if we keep shitting on that target, it’ll make everything better.

Also, it’s always Taylor Swift.

I feel like this is seeing in action the thinking that led to the cultural revolution. “Sure, he’s just a chemistry teacher. But he’s one of the evil ones. He’s in the bad group. Into the labor camp!”

Fixing the awful problems with our society requires changing a lot of things, among them taxes and the power of the wealthy to distort government and public opinion. Demonizing Taylor Swift relentlessly will do fuck all.

Kirk was kissing black ladies back when that was basically illegal. What the fuck is this? Don’t blame the “they put politics in my Trek” crowd on Trek crowd, man, those dudes were always just idiots.

The one thing that this whole analysis is missing is this: There is a ton of work to do. The oceans are dying. The planet is boiling. The garbage is stacking up, endless and endless. There are crimes big and small going undiscovered, or un-processed and dealt with in a trustworthy fashion if they are discovered. There are wars, there are dangerous materials that need to be removed from the soil and the rivers, and the policies need to be set up and enforced to stop their cousins from replacing them within the year. WE’RE NOT FUCKING DONE. This illusion is wholly wrong that capitalism has created, that it is fine to drive the car off the cliff as long as we keep paying salaries and dividends up until the moment of impact comes

Yes, we’ve gotten more efficient and powerful in our ability to translate a human into an effective change in conditions at the earth’s surface. But the problems have gotten bigger, too, and more urgent to the point that they threaten our entire species. Just because we can now keep growing the food and doing layout for the advertisements with only 15 hours a week, doesn’t mean that’s all we need to fucking do.

There is a vital question coming up. When the machines do all the work, does that mean everyone eats? Or no one?

Right now it is “no one” roughly speaking. That must change. There is no future for anyone there, just nightmares unfolding and unfolding.

“The party cannot fail, it can only be failed.”

Anyway, like I said I don’t plan to have an extensive debate. I’ll leave you with this:

https://jacobin.com/2021/08/hitler-stalin-pact-nazis-communist-deportation-soviet

Edit: Fun fact, I’ve actually visited Trotsky’s house in exile in Mexico City.

AOC has caped for Israel and the DNC

Sure she has lol

https://www.wsws.org/en/special/library/foundations-ger/10.html

73 - The KPD had been established as a response to the betrayal of social democracy. But it proved just as unable as the SPD to weld together the working class and lead it into a struggle against the Nazis. A ten-year campaign against “Trotskyism” had politically corroded the party and transformed its leadership into a willing tool of Stalin. It repeated all the opportunist and ultra-left errors, against which Lenin and Trotsky had fought ten years before, and hid its paralysis and fatalism behind radical phrase-mongering. Until 1933, Trotsky tried relentlessly to correct the wrong course of the KPD. His writings on Germany from these years, which fill two thick volumes, prove his genius as a Marxist and political leader. Banished to a remote Turkish island, forced to rely on newspapers and reports from political friends, Trotsky demonstrated an understanding of German events and their internal dynamics that remains unparalleled to this day. He foresaw the events clearly and precisely and developed a convincing alternative to the devastating course of the KPD. The KPD responded not with arguments, but with slanders, violence and the entire weight of the Moscow apparatus.

74 - At the heart of the policy of the KPD was the thesis of social fascism. From the fact that both fascism and bourgeois democracy were forms of capitalist rule, the Comintern drew the conclusion that there was no contradiction between them, not even a relative one. Fascism and social democracy were the same―in the words of Stalin: “not antipodes, but twins”―the social democrats therefore were “social fascists”. The KPD rejected any collaboration with the SPD against the rightwing danger and, in some cases, even went so far as to make common cause with the Nazis―for example, when it supported the referendum initiated by the Nazis in 1931 to bring down the SPD-led Prussian state government. Occasionally it called for “a united front from below”. But this was not an offer to collaborate, but an ultimatum to the SPD members to break with their party.

75 - Trotsky decisively opposed this form of vulgar radicalism. He recalled that Marx and Engels had protested fiercely when Lassalle had called feudal counterrevolution and the liberal bourgeoisie “one reactionary mass”. Now Stalin and the KPD were repeating the same error. “It is absolutely correct to place on the Social Democrats the responsibility for the emergency legislation of Brüning as well as for the impending danger of fascist savagery. It is absolute balderdash to identify Social Democracy with fascism”, he wrote. “The Social Democracy, which is today the chief representative of the parliamentary-bourgeois regime, derives its support from the workers. Fascism is supported by the petty bourgeoisie. The Social Democracy without the mass organizations of the workers can have no influence. Fascism cannot entrench itself in power without annihilating the workers’ organizations. Parliament is the main arena of the Social Democracy. The system of fascism is based upon the destruction of parliamentarianism. For the monopolistic bourgeoisie, the parliamentary and fascist regimes represent only different vehicles of dominion; it has recourse to one or the other, depending upon the historical conditions. But for both the Social Democracy and fascism, the choice of one or the other vehicle has an independent significance; more than that, for them it is a question of political life or death.”[3]

76 - Trotsky fought untiringly for a policy of the united front. This would have made it possible for the KPD to use the contradiction between social democracy and fascism to unite the working class, win the confidence of the social democratic workers and expose the social democratic leaders. In an article written at the end of 1931, entitled “For a Workers’ United Front Against Fascism”, he explained: “Today the Social Democracy as a whole, with all its internal antagonisms, is forced into sharp conflict with the fascists. It is our task to take advantage of this conflict and not to unite the antagonists against us.” One must “show by deeds a complete readiness to make a bloc with the Social Democrats against the fascists” and “understand how to tear the workers away from their leaders in reality. But reality today is―the struggle against fascism.” It was necessary to “help the Social Democratic workers in action―in this new and extraordinary situation―to test the value of their organizations and leaders at this time, when it is a matter of life and death for the working class.”[4]

77 - The refusal of the KPD to accept such a policy led to the German catastrophe.

I won’t say I agree with 100% of the analysis on that page but a lot of that last part of analysis seems completely spot-on to me. And, of course, how Trotsky predicted is exactly how it played out.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

I feel like we had this conversation before at some point lol… I will summarize my point of view on it and then probably dip from it:

• KPD in 1917: We’re going to seize all the guns and overthrow you and make Communism because Communism
• German government + German people and unions + SPD: Fuck no you’re not (gunfire)
• KPD in 1918: Wooooooowwwwwwwwww okay fuck you, I see how it is
• Germany: Hey KPD you still can have a seat in government, you have to get the votes though, no shooting your opposition, no seizing
• KPD: Woooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
• SPD in 1932: Hey we’re going to make an alliance with you because this guy is dangerous, we don’t care about the whole “trying to overthrow thing” that happened a generation ago
• KPD: Woooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
• Hitler: (wins)

And then much later:

• KPD (ones still alive): Hey we’re going to need all the trade unions to do what we want instead of what the workers want, because that’s leftism
• Germany: Lol fuck OFF

That is my summary. I realize you may have a different one but I don’t think I really want to get in an extended argument about it today. But yes, Germany in the 30s is a relevant example on this topic, I absolutely think.

(Oh, also, the KPD was being murdered by the Nazis with the aid of Stalin. The KPD was coordinating with Stalin, and he was selling them out because of course he was. I have absolutely no idea where you got this idea that the SPD was involved in what Hitler was doing to his opposition.)

Haven’t you heard? Shitting on liberals and not voting is all you need to do to defeat fascism. It’s literally the most important thing.

It’s too bad the Weimar Republic didn’t think of that. I feel like if only the German Communists had been spending all their energy shitting on the center, they might have had a pretty good chance of stopping Hitler from coming to power. Well, at least now we have the chance to try again, with the benefit of hindsight, and make sure we do that known successful strategy…

Removed by mod

190 min read

Hoo fuckin’ boy

I do have to say that including Hyprland in the original post is silly. Hyprland had a problem with ignorant users making ignorant speech in their community, and they didn’t police it, and once a shitstorm started, they recognized their error and started trying. It’s fine. Putting them up top, and Omarchy which is literally lead-developed by an open fascist, down below, is weird.

Holy God it’s a shitstorm… reading

I just want to point out there is nothing true in this statement. No such thing as far-right in current government (unless you consider anything right of your beliefs to be far-right, which is just silly), and immigration is completely fine, currently. My wife is an immigrant and non-us citizen and we have many immigrant friends. They are only deporting criminals, illegals, people who have broken the law.

Fuckin’ hell man. (That quote is from nobody in particular, just some random user chiming in… but still fuckin’ hell man.)

nrp’s reaction in the reply chain mostly just reads like he hasn’t picked up what’s going on. He still thinks fascism is “a political view” instead of “an active threat that might come for him and people he cares about right now, into his house and his safety, that needs resistance.” I don’t think DHH needs to be in prison or anything unless he’s done something. I do believe in free speech. But yes, the time has come for boycotts, strikes, marches, strengthening the organizations that we’ll need as things continue to get worse. It sounds like nrp is just privileged enough living his tech life that he doesn’t grasp that, and he can’t understand what people are mad about here.

Nobody remembers Switzerland as unsung heroes of World War 2, because of their commitment to freedom of expression and commerce for any side without prejudice. They’re lucky they got away with it, to be honest.

Pretty sure there is a pretty generous window where you can just return the thing for a refund no questions asked. It might be worth looking into.

Depending on the wording of the return policy, you might even be able to request one and tell them the reason is “The far right has taken over the world’s biggest government and they’re snatching people in the streets. The time to hide support for them behind ‘everyone’s welcome to their opinion’ is over. If at this moment in history you’re not willing to exclude far-right people from your circle, then go fuck yourself, fuck your hardware, give me my money back, in hindsight people should have done this to BMW and IG Farben both before and after the war. I hope you wake the fuck up. You will not be safe indefinitely from them coming for you, unless people braver than yourself stop them before they reach you.”

Usually I am against bullying people into saying the political views or taking the political decisions you want them to take. You can think they’re wrong about this (as obviously do I, for the reasons stated above) and say so without needing to try to strong-arm them. But, in this case, fuck 'em, for the reasons stated above. Read the return policy first of course to make sure you’re on solid ground, I don’t really know what it is.

Yeah, I get it. I don’t think it is necessarily bad research or anything. I just feel like maybe it would have been good to go into it as two papers:

1. Look at the funny LLM and how far off the rails it goes if you don’t keep it stable and let it kind of “build on itself” over time iteratively and don’t put the right boundaries on
2. How should we actually wrap up an LLM into a sensible model so that it can pursue an “agent” type of task, what leads it off the rails and what doesn’t, what are some various ideas to keep it grounded and which ones work and don’t work

And yeah obviously they can get confused or output counterfactuals or nonsense as a failure mode, what I meant to say was just that they don’t really do that as a response to an overload / “DDOS” situation specifically. They might do it as a result of too much context or a badly set up framework around them sure.

Initial thought: Well… but this is a transparently absurd way to set up an ML system to manage a vending machine. I mean it is a useful data point I guess, but to me it leads to the conclusion “Even though LLMs sound to humans like they know what they’re doing, they does not, don’t just stick the whole situation into the LLM input and expect good decisions and strategies to come out of the output, you have to embed it into a more capable and structured system for any good to come of it.”

Updated thought, after reading a little bit of the paper: Holy Christ on a pancake. Is this architecture what people have been meaning by “AI agents” this whole time I’ve been hearing about them? Yeah this isn’t going to work. What the fuck, of course it goes insane over time. I stand corrected, I guess, this is valid research pointing out the stupidity of basically putting the LLM in the driver’s seat of something even more complicated than the stuff it’s already been shown to fuck up, and hoping that goes okay.

Edit: Final thought, after reading more of the paper: Okay, now I’m back closer to the original reaction. I’ve done stuff like this before, this is not how you do it. Have it output JSON, have some tolerance and retries in the framework code for parsing the JSON, be more careful with the prompts to make sure that it’s set up for success, definitely don’t include all the damn history in the context up to the full wildly-inflated context window to send it off the rails, basically, be a lot more careful with how to set it up than this, and put a lot more limits on how much you are asking of the LLM so that it can actually succeed within the little box you’ve put it in. I am not at all surprised that this setup went off the rails in hilarious fashion (and it really is hilarious, you should read). Anyway that’s what LLMs do. I don’t know if this is because the researchers didn’t know any better, or because they were deliberately setting up the framework around the LLM to produce bad results, or because this stupid approach really is the state of the art right now, but this is not how you do it. I actually am a little bit skeptical about whether you even could set up a framework for a current-generation LLM that would enable to succeed at an objective and pretty frickin’ complicated task like they set it up for here, but regardless, this wasn’t a fair test. If it was meant as a test of “are LLMs capable of AGI all on their own regardless of the setup like humans generally are,” then congratulations, you learned the answer is no. But you could have framed it a little more directly to talk about that being the answer instead of setting up a poorly-designed agent framework to be involved in it.

Yeah it’s a bunch of shit. I’m not an expert obviously, just talking out of my ass, but:

1. Running inference for all the devices in the building to “our dev server” would not have maintained a usable level of response time for any of them, unless he meant to say “the dev cluster” or something and his home wifi glitched right at that moment and made it sound different
2. LLMs don’t degrade by giving wrong answers, they degrade by stopping producing tokens
3. Meta already has shown itself to be okay with lying
4. GUYS JUST USE FUCKING CANNED ANSWERS WITH THE RIGHT SOUNDING VOICE, THIS ISN’T ROCKET SCIENCE, THAT’S HOW YOU DO DEMOS WHEN YOUR SHIT’S NOT DONE YET

I think the crisis of Trump is likely to be worse than any crisis in the Western world for the last 50 years. I think the closest analogue is probably the collapse of the USSR. So yes, some of the rich people upped their wealth by orders of magnitude, and honestly you might be right that Zuck might manage to be one of that category, but also some of them lost everything or got thrown out windows, or had to survive in reduced capacity within their new walled fortresses in the horrifying new meta. I feel like more likely is that the MAGA world will remember Facebook censoring their posts about ivermectin, and not feel like Zuck needs to have a seat at the table, no matter how many ass-kissing sessions he shows up at the White House to do.

For example I feel like breaking up Meta and mandating Truth Social and TikTok as the only new sanctioned social media going forward might be one possible outcome. It’s kind of hard to say and I won’t swear that you’re definitely wrong that he might come out way ahead in the end. I’m just saying that this type of crisis is a very different type of crisis.

Part of my point is that the damage Trump is going to do will cost them tons more money than if they had helped to prop up the fairly safe and civil society they previously were allowed to exist within, under which secure umbrella they’ve been able to rake in money like leaves in autumn on a wide country estate.