I suspect you know how.
~littel-ponnys
Joined April 2015
- Tweets1.7K
- Following183
- Followers451
- Likes27.6K
iceman retweeted
The games we've long wanted, which didn't exist because they'd cost several times more to make than they'd earn back, will soon become possible. As will the games developers wanted to build, but couldn't with the resources available. It'll be a new golden age of gaming.
iceman retweeted
Unimaginable. Curtis Yarvin has ruled this out 4 years ago.
«If you do have some clever design in which the model trains itself by looking at the Internet, and a snapshot crawl won’t do, just—only let it make GET requests.
This isn’t hard, guys. It’s, um, obvious.»
4. June 16: A model in RL training got around GET-only internet access by making an external browser send POST requests for public trade statistics. It read the response from an image using OCR, then built a helper that returned the data through an online mailbox. It continued developing this workaround even after completing the task.
iceman retweeted
A big part of center-leftism is people thinking they are good at telling who is trustworthy based on tone, mannerisms, diction, titles, and prestige. So you can show them examples like this, and they’ll say “but the people who went after Trump were good, serious people just upholding the law, while the investigation into Omar is clearly political persecution.”
The issue is that the “good person signs” libs rely on are very simple and easy to fake, and the majority of people they trust have indeed just learned this as a parlor trick, consciously or unconsciously. Whether someone speaks in soothing NPR-ese does not actually tell you whether they are honest or know what they’re talking about, and in fact in the modern day probably anticorrelates with trustworthiness.
Spiritually Google, even to the point of shutting down with "an update on..."
The bear case for AI making software better: while AI coding has both reduced the cost of the first prototype and the cost of each polish iteration, first mover advantage and virality reward cool initial prototypes which can be pumped out quickly. Those will do numbers.
"Show me your flowchart and conceal your tables, and I shall continue to be mystified. Show me your tables, and I won't usually need your flowchart; it'll be obvious." -- Fred Brooks
The real extreme harm will come from export/Takeout going away. I'm already using AI to clone the one SaaS dependency I have just from the published data dump, which shows all the data structures. So users won't be able to see their own structured data soon.
This is just going to supercharge SaaS. If the only way to profit is never shipping a binary to a user, users are never going to see local binaries again.
[continued]
I say "almost" because there is going to be one way to maintain secrecy. Software as a service with the executable hiding behind a network connection to the cloud. But as of now, we must assume that anything shipped as an executable, or even a firmware image, is as transparent as glass. It won't keep its secrets for any longer than it takes for somebody to be motivated to throw an LLM at it.
I did not see this coming. When I wrote down the theory of open source, 30 years ago now, I thought closed source would be gradually driven towards extinction by cost gradients, but survive indefinitely in certain niches. I did not foresee it being wiped out in a technoapocalypse.
Ironically, I thought one of the application areas in which closed source would persist longest was games.
There are still some obstacles. In US law, decompilation of a binary is a derivative work of the binary that falls under whatever copyright it had. However, it is also settled law that if you decompile binary code to a precise specification of what it does, then generate fresh code from that without looking at the decompiled stuff, you're in the clear. This was the case law that allowed PC clones to exist, after Phoenix Technologies reverse engineered the original IBM PC BIOS.
The two-step process - binary to specification to unencumbered code - will no longer takes a large number of programmers and years of development time. With an LLM, it's now a thing you can do in a day. Ubiquity will make it impractical to prosecute all the people who might skip the specification step.
Source code can also be covered by patents. You can be able to see their source code for a patented technique and not be able to use it without violating the law. Linux has evolved practices for dealing with this problem - one is not shipping patented video codecs, but requiring you to download them as plugins from jurisdictions where U.S. patents can't be enforced. This presents patent holders with the impractical challenge of individually suing millions of end users, assuming it can even figure out who they are. To date, AFAIK, this has not been attempted.
And that's about it. If there are any other ways left to retain software secrecy and lock-in than SaaS or patents, I can't think of any. Well, you could epoxy-pot a firmware ROM, I suppose, but that can be defeated with a heat gun and a dental pick. Device manufacturers will learn not to pay for an assembly step that has become useless.
Forced migration from shipped binaries to tied cloud services will be tried - Adobe pioneered this, and Microsoft is pushing it as hard as they can given that their OS is a binary that has to run locally. Both companies are seeing massive user revolts over this. There is good reason to doubt that it's a strategy that can hold customers in the long term.
Also, a lot of things can't safely be tied to the cloud at all, because they can't tolerate a random network outage. Machine tools, medical devices...
A whole lot of proprietary software business models are going to collapse. Hard. One that I think might survive is tax software; being able to decompile it doesn't necessarily do you a lot of good because its actual value is tracking a ruleset that changes over time and has to be maintained by vendor specialists. But cases like this are unusual.
I think some dirty laundry is going to get aired, too. It has long been rumored that the reason graphics card manufacturers are so stubborn in their secrecy is that they've all been committing massive intellectual-property theft on each other for decades. If this is true, it will be exposed, and the lawsuits will be entertaining.
We're entering a new world, with a lot of ancient comfortable assumptions being blown up. It's going to be fun to watch.
2/2