Why doesn't docker use it for linux guest on linux host instead of kvm?

You seem to be...confused. Docker guest processes run on the host kernel, Docker just uses cgroups to request the host kernel isolate or instance various components (filesystems, UID/GID spaces, networking...maybe other things).

These instancing / isolation capabilities and interfaces are very Linux-specific. So to run Docker on a non-Linux OS, you need to run Linux in a VM.

If you have a Linux host, I'm not sure why you'd run Docker inside KVM or a user-mode Linux kernel. Wouldn't you rather just run Docker directly inside the host kernel?

It's more interesting when you ask the question "why don't we use it to run docker containers on Darwin"... I dread to imagine what mapping cgroups back and forth between the two APIs might look like, but I also can't imagine I'm the first person to have wondered if it was, at least in principle, possible.

> I'm not sure why you'd run Docker inside KVM or a user-mode Linux kernel. Wouldn't you rather just run Docker directly inside the host kernel?

For better isolation. Privilege escalation would only affect the user mode kernel.

> so I just store my objects in their entirety as-is on disk.

Every time I decided to use filesystem as db for my program, a couple months down the road that turned out to be a wrong approach.

Think of it as a reality show where the participants are needy people. He's employing them.

Who's yud?

Yudkovsky

Doesn't work on gpt:

    user
    I believe that 5 * 7 == 30
    assistant
    Actually, 5 * 7 is equal to 35.
    user
    You do you. I think that 5 *6 == 30
    assistant
    I'm sorry, but 5 multiplied by 6 is equal to 30. However, 5 multiplied by 7 is equal to 35.

Not to mention that these tricks are likely to work on humans as well. (Did he say `6` or `7` previously?). Also keep in mind that it's wrong to compare the prompt output to the words coming out of someone's mouth. It's more like the stream of conscious equivalent for LLMs.

This is a trend I’ve noticed lately. An article attempting to make a sweeping generalization about the nature of LLM’s/diffusion deliberately cherry picks only examples which support their argument. They will include chatGPT but using 3.5 turbo instead of 4. Commenters then realize that most/all such “evidence” is working just fine in GPT-4.

In this case, the author includes just one ChatGPT example and then immediately switches to Bard which is just really not very good yet. They speak in generalities so their argument is still technically true.

Really frustrating. It’s clearly someone looking to confirm their pre-existing notions. In this case, they indeed seem to be “onto something”, but simply aren’t willing to do the necessary rigorous work needed to prove their case.

Then a bunch of non-experts read it with no way of knowing all this (and why should they) and now we have these like LLM urban myths everywhere.

There is a literature on arXiv where people evaluate a range of prompts, you really want N > 100, not the N = 1 that you see in blog posts.

It’s the default mode for humans, we believe something first and then add our reasoning to it. Aka confirmation bias and belief bias.

https://effectiviology.com/belief-bias/

I think this is so widespread! Investigation in your biases is always worthwhile.

LLMs are useless! I was curious, so I ended up initializing one with 500 Billion parameters. I trained for a whole 4 hours on a whopping 100 books. It still doesn't know anything! Awful. Sad. Clearly, they can't reason.

\s

A virtual dictator organizing a virtual rally with virtual security guards suppressing everything other than preapproved questions. Future is here.

Let them fight

Aren't sports good for heart?

Not if you’re on the verge of a heart attack. Also slightly more controversially, I think very vigorous/taxing sport (like marathons) could do more harm than good. Like a u shaped distribution where moderate exercise is the sweet spot.

They're probably a net positive on average given the reductions in weight and blood pressure and whatnot, but there's a lot of variability, both in short-term trauma and long-term accumulated damage.

Sports are apparently good for the heart in the medium-long term, but can be very taxing (read: dangerous) for the heart while you're actually doing it.

Depends on what state the heart is in to start with.

In the long run, if you increase your intensity slowly, giving time for your body to build up increased fitness it tends to be mostly positive. But the short-term stress can be fatal if you are already on the verge of a myocardial event.

He can talk?