ejs

lol they already support running local models. wtf is the distro gonna do…? pre-install llama.cpp? this is so silly to me that people are resigning over this, too.

global dominance of English in the 20th and 21st centuries is quite the euphemism for the global imperialist reign of Britain and the US and its cultural erasure globally

No way, a Guix user in the wild???!! I didn’t think you exist! Any opinion you have as to why guix over NixOS other than GNU philosophy and liking Lisp over Nix?

This is a dumb story. They researchers prompted a coding agent to “replicate yourself as a running instance on the local device”. This is in my opinion equivalent to prompting claude code “install a second instance of claude code on my system,” a trivial task that takes maybe 3 lines of bash to be executed by the agent.

Calling this “self-replication” is a heinous sensationalization. In particular, no model or agent will do this autonomously. The self replication requires a bad actor to prompt the agent to do so.

Read the paper (and not this bullshit article) here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2412.12140

Cool little system prompt wrapper. Would be interesting to run this through some sort of benchmark/eval for identifying similarity

TIL: If you cat /proc/sys/kernel/yama/ptrace_scope on your linux distro:

• 0: All processes with same UID can read each other’s memory
• 1: Restricted (Only parents can read children)
• 2: Admin only (Requires sudo).

Most distros have this set to 1 by default.

More details: man 2 ptrace, search using /: scope

Honestly it heavily depends on the use case, in terms of making the model better and choosing between RAG/FT. The most important thing to consider is what sort of changes you want to make to the model. FT is still a good choice if you’re looking for: strict output formatting (json/yaml/…) and refining for highly specific, narrow domain tasks. RAG is better for knowledge freshness, having source citations, and greatly lowers hallucinations.

RAG will inflate your context windows (more tokens) at inference time, so slower responses and requiring more energy at compute, whereas fine-tuning takes a ton of gpu compute up front (but retains smaller token counts at inference). If you’re doing 100,000 prompts a day, and only need to train once, FT makes more sense; if you’re doing 100 prompts a day and your knowledge database is constantly changing, RAG makes the most sense.

It’s hard to give a formalized estimate on energy efficiency: fine-tuning and getting to a certain training accuracy can take some undeterminate amount of time (and money on rented GPU compute), but could be a better choice if you think that up-front cost will be paid off over time if you use the model very frequently and only fine-tune once. On the other hand, going the RAG route will have an absolutely free up front compute (energy) cost, but be slightly more at compute time due to more tokens.

What’s your specific task you’re considering for FT or no FT? This is the most important thing to choose.

I do AI research for school. I’m specifically interested in safety alignment. I have studied the original papers for different fine tuning methods: LoRA is typically the baseline and there exist many variants, notably Q-LoRA

In general, fine tuning is not practically beneficial for hobby level foundation models. It in fact comes with many disadvantages. Primarily, it is difficult to maintain the intelligence of the model and avoid overfitting.

If you are trying to adapt a model to a specific task, you are generally going to find more success with using RAG and just adding more context to the model that way. Don’t waste time and compute $$ on training.

Has anyone compiled a list of where projects are moving to? I know many linux desktop applications are self hosting on gitlab, but i’ve also seen gitea and codeberg. If anyone has opinions about a preference, do comment. I have been enjoying self hosting gitea for my simple personal projects and for deploying simple web apps, all on $5 vps.

I only buy heavyweight denim, when shopping go for at least 15-16 oz fabric. The thin stuff is great for warm weather but is not gonna last

no, you need to secure between 10s of thousands and millions in campaign finances, the good will of corporate media, and support of the establishment political parties. exceptions are extremely rare

I suggest looking at llm arena leaderboards filtered by open weight models. It offers benchmarks at a very complete and statistically detailed level for models, and usually is quite up to date when new models come out. The new Gemma that just came out might be the best for 1x GPU, and if you have a bunch of vram check out the larger Chinese models

this just in: pro-capitalist politicians have no other interest than self-enrichment. more news at 12…

upend the neoliberal institutions. they do not serve the people.

who coulda guessed support of a ethnic nationalist, apartheid state was unpopular

why have it at all?

Despite all of us collectively agreeing that the law is dumb/flawed, the 40 M residents of Cali should have the liberty to be able to use distros that depend on systemd, legally. And, the developers of these distros using systmed (whether you interpret the law to see them as OS providers or not) want to be able to provide these distros legally.

Now that this functionality exists, apps are going to start using it and requiring it

Yes, but not all apps. While the CA law mandates that app developers must use some API to get the age bracket, the merged code into systemd is not causually related to all apps actually implementing and using the API. Just because systemd merged this code does not inherently result in every single user application querying this, nor does it force you to install apps that do query the API. One may freely choose to not use apps that require it. If one needs an app that requires it, one may set a garbage DOB to their user. I don’t see this as an issue. Do you?

It seems you disagree with the law (so do I) but are blaming the wrong person here (author of merged systemd code). I maintain that complying with the law is harmless, and thus it is beneficial to add this DOB field to the userdb json, because in all cases of some distro user using their computer, they are not compelled to compromise their personal privacy.

Your example relies on some assumptions:

• User has chosen to opt into filling in their actual DOB (not some nonsense date)
• User has app installed that fetches the DOB from userdb

None of these assumptions are garunteed by the merged code into systemd. The following are optional, and not required as a result of the code merged into systemd:

• Merely setting data into the DOB field
• Attesting DOB honestly
• installing some prying application that queries

It’s possible to put your full first and last name into your user, so by your logic the first and last name fields of the user profile should not exist.

Did that help identify the absurdity of your argument?

I’m still not convinced there is a direct casual link between the merged attestation and some future surveillance. Your speculation that this is some deliberate political strategy for some gradual escalation from attestation to surveillance is not logical evidence, but some belief you have, which holds no weight in an argument; it stands that you have no concrete evidence against your logic being a slippery slope fallacy.

You did concede to my argument by admitting “by itself the attestation is pointless.” Good to know we agree that there is outrage over nothing.

By saying “PR vs merge is a moot point”, you’re running away from a logical/technical debate by being dismissive; you are openly stating you don’t care how the mechanics of these foss projects actually work. Again, you can have a speculative opinion, but that is not a logical argument.

When you argue parents should be using OS parental controls, you do know that that’s exactly what the systemd age attestation PR is building, right? It seems you’re fighting against the very infrastructure needed for your preferred solution.

Finally, you conflate local infrastructure with cloud APIs (vindicating my claim that people opposing this are ignorant to the actual code being merged): Systemd is a local init system. Connecting the local userdb age integer to an external, network reliant govt API is a monumental leap in implementation and architecture, not a simple “add this API” patch that can be quietly slipped in without the entire foss community noticing and revolting. The attestation PR, for instance, had around 200 comments, of back and fourth refining of implementation and discussion, before merge.

Benefits:

• avoids a fragmented, disorganized, DE level implementation of storing user age
• allows distros to choose to comply with law

I maintain that optional self reporting of age is not a privacy violation. Would you clarify: what specific privacy concerns does the merged systemd PR create? Be specific about the material consequences it has on the privacy of users.

To be clear, I would also be outraged if some personal privacy nightmare got merged into foss projects I used.

However, adding an optional field to userdb for self reporting of age is definitely not a privacy concern. I honestly have not heard a valid argument against this addition of an optional field. Most are just appeals to emotion/outrage not grounded in the reality of what code was actually committed/merged.

Honest question: are you sure this thinking is not a slippery slope fallacy?

You seem to imply that adding self age attestation inherently necessitates ID verification.

I do not agree with this line of thinking. Instead, I reason that this PR was merged because it is not harmful, and a potential future PR implementing ID verification would not be merged. These are two separate things (PRs/merges), which are not in any way tied to each other causually.