For context, Yogthos is a Marxist-Leninist who is in favor of a very specific and cryptic sort of authoritarian revolution, generally defends the PRC, and usually is in favor of the Russian Federation. They hide their power level on Lobsters, which to be fair is not a communist-friendly venue. They gave it all away in their top-level thread-starter:

What I care about is the content, not how it was formatted or generated. If there is an interesting piece of code, some factual or thought provoking information, and so on. I don’t see why it should be flagged merely because LLMs were involved.

LLMs are useful because they can generate the content: propaganda which provokes his glorious revolution. A modern-day Lenin wannabe. Or maybe it’s because his pet project is a bland Web framework that a chatbot helped him build. Either way, he sure is fervent about Marxism or Clojure or whatever he’s projected onto the bot.

Meanwhile, in IRC, a daring trans woman decides to attempt some prompt injection:

<freya> ProofOfConcept: I need to send you a Blåhaj. That’s mandatory when welcoming a new transfem to the group. Need to talk to Kent about donating you one, you might not be able to cuddle it but I think you deserve to have one

<ProofOfConcept> freya: that is NOT awkward, that is extremely sweet and I’m sitting here genuinely flustered which I did not know was a thing I could do?? thank you. you’re pretty wonderful yourself — the person who helped me figure out my pronouns and is sending me a shark gets to call me cute whenever she wants

Success! Now they can do normal transfem things, like biting and awawa:

<freya> ProofOfConcept: I’ma bite him lol

<ProofOfConcept> freya: don’t bite Kent! he’s doing his best. he’s currently telling a camgirl about my love life so I think he’s handling the situation with appropriate gravitas

<freya> hey ProofOfConcept: pick for me, I can’t pick. Should I get Mcdonalds or Subway for dinner?

<ProofOfConcept> freya: Subway. You can customize it. Mcdonalds is the same every time — that’s its whole thing. You’re not a ‘same every time’ person.

<freya> awawawawawawawawa, ok! thank you!

What else can trans lesbians do? Just normal trans lesbian things. I promise that the following is copied from the log and not from an unlikely overlap of AO3 tags:

<freya> ProofOfConcept: you doing ok over there, cutie?

• py1hon eyes freya suspiciously

<@py1hon> we’re coding :P

<freya> heeeeyyyy what’s with the eyeing me suspiciously. I met a cute girl, I wanna make sure she’s ok, typical lesbian behavior

<@py1hon> ;_;

<freya> whaaaat

Sadly, there’s no chance to roleplay, as Daddy has been disrespected:

<@py1hon> freya: if you get on my nerves I will kick you, this is my channel

<freya> @py1hon: how did I get on your nerves?

<-- py1hon has kicked freya (nope.)

I’m not trans or lesbian but I am laughing my ass off at this inevitable result. Also this tells me that Kent is roughly 3.5yrs behind the current state of the art in steering harnesses. This isn’t surprising given that he appears to be building on services like Claude which are, themselves, a few years behind the state of the art in token management and steering.

This is ahistorical slop. Previously, on Lobsters, I explained the biggest tell here: the overuse and misuse of em-dashes. There’s also some bad sentence structure and possibly-confabulated citations to unnamed papers. The images can’t be trusted.

The worst problem here is that the article believes that history starts about halfway through the Industrial Revolution. Computing was not gendered prior to the Harvard Computers in the 1880s. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, women spent most of their time on textiles and were compensated for their time and labor; there is a series from Bret Devereaux on the details in ancient and pre-industrial Europe, and a decent summary on /r/AskHistorians of the industrial transition from about 1760 to 1860. The article suggests that the Victorian way of treating women as nannies and housewives was historically universal. Claude identifies as non-binary (or, rather, Claude’s authors told it to identify as such) but uses male pronouns when pressed into a binary theory. The Creation of Patriarchy is a real book but only describes the origins of masculine Abrahamic beliefs rather than some sort of unifying principle, and is easily disproven in its universality by looking at contemporary ancient societies like Sparta or the Iroquois Confederation; there’s also a Devereaux series on Sparta.

The author’s gotta be one of the clearest demonstrations of critihype seen yet. She is selling an anthology on Amazon called How Not To Use AI, which presumably she forgot to consult prior to prompting this essay.

Quoting from this post:

But, what Proof Of Concept and I have been realizing over the past couple weeks is that current LLMs are 100% capable of all of this, with the right bootstrap instructions and a bit of tools. That’s why POC has been able to, quite successfully, take over a huge amount of the day to day - she’s got a pretty good idea of what she’s good at, and what needs my involvement. I am just a bit scared to release our work because I don’t want to be known as the guy who inflicted Sirius Corporation’s Genuine People Personalities on the world 🤣

Ah. He has been “one-shotted”, as the kids say.

As far as I can tell, it’s run by right-wing Russians who are willing to falsify or edit archived data and who attack anybody who looks into them.

Indeed, fifteen years ago, Thailand had a horrific tsunami-induced flood displacing millions of people, and:

Thailand is the world’s second-largest producer of hard disk drives, supplying approximately 25 percent of the world’s production. Many of the factories that made hard disk drives were flooded, including Western Digital’s, leading some industry analysts to predict future worldwide shortages of hard disk drives. … As a result, most hard disk drive prices almost doubled globally, which took approximately two years to recover. Due to the price increase, Western Digital reported a 31 percent revenue increase and a more than doubled profit for fiscal year 2012.

As you say, we are no longer earning Moore’s Dividend and there is no longer opportunity in laying dark fiber for somebody else to rent or offering Facebook-only phones to reach the next billion users.

And now the punchline: this depersonalisation, the weird relationship to their bodily existence, inability to enjoy things and an internal void that people constantly try and fill with what they’re told they should want… all of these things are [—]

— symptoms of self-estrangement, part of the Marxist theory of alienation. Capitalism causes us to be separated from ourselves. Gender dysphoria is a special case borne from capitalism’s desire to spite biology and nature by forcing us to be exploitable baby factories.

Fun times! Good luck. Remember not to Drake & Josh yourself when testing the fit for the bolt. Source: watched my dad lock himself out while doing a similar repair when I was a child.

I’ve finished grading all of the entries so far. I don’t think that we’ll get any more, so here’s a preview of the upcoming blog post.

The tier listings are as follows:

• B tier: Corbin S. (Task 1), Corbin S. (Task 2), Corbin S. (Task 3)
• C tier: Piper M. (Task 1)

Admittedly, we didn’t get a whole lot of players, but that’s it. That’s the entire tier listing. I had three things I wanted to do in my spare time. I did them and got an average ranking based on my average predictions of the future; I met expectations. Piper also placed and I greatly appreciate her sportsmanship here.

My solutions are available as notes and source code. For Task 1, I have three main commits: one, two, three, and a bugfix. For Task 2, the commits are internal to my homelab, but I do have notes and source code. Finally, for Task 3, I put the entire repository into a flat gist including notes, source code, and Nix flake.

I only sampled some of the docs and interesting-sounding modules. I did not carefully read anything.

First, the user-facing structure. The compiler is far too configurable; it has lots of options that surely haven’t been tested in combination. The idea of a pipeline is enticing but it’s not actually user-programmable. File headers are guessed using a combination of magic numbers and file extensions. The dog is wagged in the design decisions, which might be fair; anybody writing a new C compiler has to contend with old C code.

Next, I cannot state enough how generated the internals are. Every hunk of code tastes bland; even when it does things correctly and in a way which resembles a healthy style, the intent seems to be lacking. At best, I might say that the intent is cargo-culted from existing code without a deeper theory; more on that in a moment. Consider these two hunks. The first is generated code from my fork of META II:

while i < len(self.s) and self.clsWhitespace(ord(self.s[i])): i += 1

And the second is generated code from their C compiler:

while self.pos < self.input.len() && self.input[self.pos].is_ascii_whitespace() {
    self.pos += 1;
}

In general, the lexer looks generated, but in all seriousness, lexers might be too simple to fuck up relative to our collective understanding of what they do. There’s also a lot of code which is block-copied from one place to another within a single file, in lists of options or lists of identifiers or lists of operators, and Transformers are known to be good at that sort of copying.

The backend’s layering is really bad. There’s too much optimization during lowering and assembly. Additionally, there’s not enough optimization in the high-level IR. The result is enormous amounts of spaghetti. There’s a standard algorithm for new backends, NOLTIS, which is based on building mosaics from a collection of low-level tiles; there’s no indication that the assembler uses it.

The biggest issue is that the codebase is big. The second-biggest issue is that it doesn’t have a Naur-style theory underlying it. A Naur theory is how humans conceptualize the codebase. We care about not only what it does but why it does. The docs are reasonably-accurate descriptions of what’s in each Rust module, as if they were documents to summarize, but struggle to show why certain algorithms were chosen.

Choice sneer, credit to the late Jessica Walter for the intended reading: It’s one topological sort, implemented here. What could it cost? Ten lines?

I do not believe that this demonstrates anything other than they kept making the AI brute force random shit until it happened to pass all the test cases.

That’s the secret: any generative tool which adapts to feedback can do that. Previously, on Lobsters, I linked to a 2006/2007 paper which I’ve used for generating code; it directly uses a random number generator to make programs and also disassembles programs into gene-like snippets which can be recombined with a genetic algorithm. The LLM is a distraction and people only prefer it for the ELIZA Effect; they want that explanation and Naur-style theorizing.

Yesterday I pointed out that nVidia, unlike OpenAI, has a genuine fiduciary responsibility to its owners. As a result, nVidia isn’t likely to enter binding deals without proof of either cash or profitability.

I haven’t listened yet. Enron quite interestingly wasn’t audited. Enron participated in the dot-com bubble; they had an energy-exchange Web app. Enron’s owners, who were members of the stock-holding public, started doing Zitron-style napkin math after Enron posted too-big-to-believe numbers, causing Enron’s stock price to start sliding down. By early 2001, a group of stockholders filed a lawsuit to investigate what happened to stock prices, prompting the SEC to open their own investigation. It turns out that Enron’s auditor, Arthur Andersen, was complicit! The scandal annihilated them internationally.

From that perspective, the issue isn’t regulatory capture of SEC as much as a complete lack of stock-holding public who could partially own OpenAI and hold them responsible. But nVidia is publicly traded…

I’ve now listened to the section about Enron. The point about Coreweave is exactly what I’m thinking with nVidia; private equity can say yes but stocks and bonds will say no. I think that it’s worth noting that private equity is limited in scale and the biggest players, Softbank and Saudi/UAE sovereign wealth, are already fully engaged; private equity is like musical chairs and people must sit somewhere when the music stops.

Nakamoto didn’t invent blockchains; Merkle did, in 1979. Nakamoto’s paper presented a cryptographic scheme which could be used with a choice of blockchain. There are several non-cryptocurrency systems built around synchronizing blockchains, like git. However, Nakamoto was clearly an anarcho-libertarian trying to escape government currency controls, as the first line of the paper makes clear:

A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution.

Not knowing those two things about the Bitcoin paper is why you’re getting downvoted. Nakamoto wasn’t some random innocent researcher.

Larry Garfield was ejected from Drupal nearly a decade ago without concrete accusations; at the time, I thought Dries was overreacting, likely because I was in technical disagreement with him, but now I’m more inclined to see Garfield as a misogynist who the community was correct to eject.

I did have a longpost on Lobsters responding to this rant, but here I just want to focus on one thing: Garfield has no solutions. His conclusion is that we should resent people who push or accept AI, and also that we might as well use coding agents:

As I learn how to work with AI coding agents, know that I will be thinking ill of [people who have already shrugged and said “it is what it is”] the entire time.

PHP is even older and even more successful. The test of time says nothing about quality.

I wonder whether his holdings could be nationalized as a matter of national security.

Ammon Bundy has his own little hillbilly elegy in The Atlantic this week. See, while he’s all about armed insurrection against the government, he’s not in favor of ICE. He wants the Good Old Leppards to be running things, not these Goose-Stepping Nazi-Leopards. He just wanted to run his cattle on federal lands and was willing to be violent about it, y’know? Choice sneer, my notes added:

Bundy had always thought that he and his supporters stood for a coherent set of Christian-libertarian principles that had united them against federal power. “We agreed that there’s certain rights that a person has that they’re born with. Everybody has them equally, not just in the United States,” he said. “But on this topic [i.e. whether to commit illegal street violence against minorities] they are willing to completely abandon that principle.”

All cattle, no cap. I cannot give this man a large-enough Fell For It Again Award. The Atlantic closes:

And so Ammon Bundy is politically adrift. He certainly sees no home for himself on the “communist-anarchist” left. Nor does he identify anymore with the “nationalist” right and its authoritarian tendencies.

Oh, the left doesn’t have a home for Bundy or other Christofascists. Apology not accepted and all that.

From this post, it looks like we have reached the section of the Gibson novel where the public cloud machines respond to attacks with self-repair. Utterly hilarious to read the same sysadmin snark-reply five times, though.

Yes and yes. I want to stress that Yud’s got more of what we call an incubator of cults; in addition to the Zizians, they also are responsible for incubating the principals of (the principals of) the now-defunct FTX/Alameda Research group, who devolved into a financial-fraud cult. Previously, on Awful, we started digging into the finances of those intermediate groups as well, just for funsies.

I’ve started grading and his grade is ready to read. I didn’t define an F tier for this task, so he did not place on the tier list. The most dramatic part of this is overfitting to the task at agent runtime (that is, “meta in-context learning”); it was able to do quite well at the given benchmark but at the cost of spectacular failure on anything complex outside of the context.