Avatar
Cpt. Charisma
50f1e4619bac816a6cfcaf613a2d5b501d4635deceaafe21ed917c66e24f6aff
Niche Internet Micro Celebrity, Genius, Hacker, Cypherpunk wannabe, New Media Pioneer, International Arms Dealer, Clandestine Astronaut, Billionaire, Bitcoiner.

100% true. Drugs are banned, and no one has ever pulled a joint on me.

Agreed. Current AI tech doesn't think. It just gives you a sort of average or statistical amalgam of it's inputs. This works if the answer you need is one of the most commonly talked abou (or coded) ones. It is completely useless for solving problems and doing new things.

Of course, most code isn't doing new things. It's doing old things in new ways. This is why libraries and frameworks exist. This is also where AI can have an impact. Unfortunately, part of that impact is that we will get gigantic code bases that no one understands. Adding new features and fixing bugs will get harder and harder, even for the AI. Maintainability is an essential part of any commercially viable code base, and AI is going to destroy it. Any programmer who has ever taken a job where everyone who knows how the code actually works has quite will understand the severity of this problem. Everyone else is going to suffer.

4TB mSATA drives are going for just over $200 now. You can get away with 2TB even. If you install them locally, ordering them, waiting for ground shipping and starting the sync over would be faster than your current setup.

I haven't figured out how yet, but I think the combinatioin of cash settled bitcoin futures and cash create ETFs is going to end up breaking Wall St. somehow. Anyone have any insights on this?

OMG do you know about Ms. SMith!!!!!!!!@@@??

Replying to Avatar PABLOF7z

I have recently launched Wikifreedia, which is a different take on how Wikipedia-style systems can work.

Yes, it's built on nostr, but that's not the most interesting part.

The fascinating aspect is that there is no "official" entry on any topic. Anyone can create or edit any entry and build their own take about what they care about.

Think the entry about Mao is missing something? Go ahead and edit it, you don't need to ask for permission from anyone.

Stuart Bowman put it best on a #SovEng hike:

> The path to truth is in the integration of opposites.

Since launching Wikifreedia, less than a week ago, quite a few people asked me if it would be possible to import ALL of wikipedia into it.

Yes. Yes it would.

I initially started looking into it to make it happen as I am often quick to jump into action.

But, after thinking about it, *I am not convinced importing all of Wikipedia is the way to go*.

The magical thing about building an encyclopedia with no canonical entry on any topic is that each individual can bring to light the part they are interested the most about a certain topic, it can be dozens or hundreds, or perhaps more, entries that focus on the edges of a topic.

Whereas, Wikipedia, in their Quijotean approach to truth, have focused on the impossible path of seeking neutrality.

Humans can't be neutral, we have biases.

Show me an unbiased human and I'll show you a lifeless human.

*Biases are good*. Having an opinion is good. Seeking neutrality is seeking to devoid our views and opinions of humanity.

Importing Wikipedia would mean importing a massive amount of colorless trivia, a few interesting tidbits, but, more important than anything, a vast amount of watered-down useless information.

All edges of the truth having been neutered by a democratic process that searches for a single truth via consensus.

# "What's the worst that could happen?"

Sure, importing wikipedia would simply be *one* more entry on each topic.

Yes.

But culture has incredibly strong momentum.

And if the culture that develops in this type of media is that of exclusively watered-down comfortable truths, then some magic could be lost.

If people who are passionate or have a unique perspective about a topic feel like the "right approach" is to use the wikipedia-based article then I would see this as an extremely negative action.

### An alternative

An idea we discussed on the #SovEng hike was, what if the wikipedia entry is processed by different "AI agents" with different perspectives.

Perhaps instead of blankly importing the "Napoleon" article, an LLM trained to behave as a 1850s russian peasant could be asked to write a wiki about Napoleon. And then an agent tried to behave like Margaret Thatcher could write one.

Etc, etc.

Embrace the chaos. Embrace the bias.

Any chance of importing everything2.com into it instead? It's usually more accurate than Wikipedia, plus it includes stuff that isn't 'appropriate' for an encyclopedia.

Replying to Avatar QW

#SatHack

LOL - he doesn't know that his products are overpriced.

Seriously, aren't childrens' cerials like the same as steak, pound-for-pound?