The probability is high that major AI development companies are already using an AI instance internally for strategic and tactical decisions. The State power institutions, especially intelligence, are now having a real competitor in the private sector.

I have created a simulation of how a tree can be grown from a programmable cellular automata. Each cell executes some operations, including replication, based on the surrounding conditions and its age/iteration. More complex organisms can be grown with this technique.

You can play too with it here: https://acionescu.github.io/digitalfire/WebContent/

Very very cool, bookmarked!

This insight makes one wonder if the same thing applies to humans as well. Are we just the sum of our experiences? Or the architectures of our brains are much more complex and different so that they have more influence on the outputs for the same inputs?

I think it's the latter. We may well have some subsystems that work like LLMs or other current AIs, but the overall system of a human mind seems to work in a fundamentally different way, as it's able to make good creative choices (such as the next word to say) without looking at lots of options.

Consider a chess engine that plays at grandmaster level, i.e. a human grandmaster can sometimes beat it. Even though it's not the best chess engine in the world, it simulates billions of possible scenarios to decide each move. Yet the grandmaster can still beat it sometimes, even though he clearly isn't thinking about billions of possible scenarios. (On the question of whether human brains may in fact unconsciously process billions of possibilities when deciding a chess move, using some neurological process we haven't discovered, I've heard David Deutsch argue this would be thermodynamically impossible as it would require far more energy than the brain consumes.) So the human grandmaster's brain must be doing something else that we don't understand. I think a similar comparison applies with how an LLM and a human choose the next word to say. An LLM has to run a giant statistical search for candidates. Humans seem to be doing something else.

>An LLM has to run a giant statistical search for candidates. Humans seem to be doing something else.

LLMs don't work this way.

Could you elaborate? If my understanding of this is significantly off then I’d appreciate if you could explain.

I mean there's no search. They compute probabilities but it's not a lookup table.

As many have stated here, the problem is not that there aren't good data exchange protocols in the world, the problem is the PROTOCOL or the MODEL by which the world works, which is maximizing financial profit, not civilizational profit. Humanity is not yet capable of acting as a whole, we're still in a paradigm where each part is trying to rule the other parts. With this kind of mindset, a territorial mindset, it's only logical that every actor out there is trying to control as much as it can, and create an advantage for itself. That's why no sharing and cooperation data protocol catches, because those are incompatible with the current state of Affairs.

I'd say that this is a romanticized holistic vs reductionist exploration. Interesting nonetheless.

Possibly, but having a good story or metaphor is way better for spreading an idea than having abstract terms defining it with utter precision; so this kind of "romantization" is valuable for debate.

Absolutely! Should have said interesting and valuable.

I get the same :( I'm on Archlinux.

This is amazing! There are a lot of low level things that I don't really grasp and, while going through the APE description, I saw this: "The other tradeoff is the GCC Runtime Exception forbids code morphing, but I already took care of that for you, by rewriting the GNU runtimes".

Can somebody, please, explain if allowing code morphing will increase security risks?

What I think we need is Interoperability, not just protocols. What I understand by interoperability is what a mature (spoken) language provides. Although its body of words remains pretty much fixed, it offers a wide range of expression. I think that what we need is a language of the internet to achieve this type of interoperability. So, in a way, a language can be seen as a communication protocol and, with such a language, two systems can talk and discover and consume each other's services. This language shouldn't change too much, but it should be complex enough, to start with, in order to allow a high degree of expression and, ultimately, interoperability.

Discoverability is a fundamental part of protocol design. Here's a list of service discovery protocols:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_discovery

We could use a C-3PO (protocol droid, fluent in over six million forms of communication) for interop.

I'm not talking about a zillion protocols with discoverable services, but of a single language of the internet that allows service discoverability and concept sharing dynamically between peers.

You mean like HTTP? Isn't Google already doing this?

Open-source is eating the world and, in some sense, the other way around too.

Hi, creator here. This is a basic anonymous chat with video conferencing, implemented over a federated network of nodes that communicate over encrypted connections, exchanging events.

Basically, anyone can run their own node and access the services implemented over this infrastructure or connect to an existing node. For now, only this chat demo is implemented. One can choose to run its own node locally and accesses the chat app via their local node, the communication will be effectively end-to-end encrypted this way.

I'm here to answer any questions.

compare it to alternatives

I'm really not that knowledgeable about the alternatives. I would say that this is a very rudimentary form of IRC in terms of functionalities, but with encrypted connection between the nodes and making it easy for a user to run its own node. It offers a basic video conferencing feature as well.