But by using Claude Code, you're essentially handing over your data from Google's bot to another data-hungry bot run by an equally untrustworthy entity.
You don't need an anthropomorphized computer program running on trillion dollar companies' servers just to run `rclone copy`.
You're not syncing photos to anthropic services, you're not even using Claude code to run rclone for you, and specifically you're not ingesting every synchronised photo or video into the context.
You're not authorising CC to access your photos.
Claude Code is used to prepare the rclone run.
What do you mean that by using cc you're handing over your data (presumably synced photos) you're handing over your data"?
The comment I was responding to only said "just use claude code." So every single word you wrote in your reply is a hallucination.
If you genuinely believe that "just use claude code" means any of the things you wrote, you are definitely not careful enough to take the precautions necessary to contain commercial spyware. Claude Code would read your credentials and probe your files to "see if everything is set up correctly" and you won't think twice about it.
> OK, explain, what to the "just use Claude code" means in your opinion.
I see you didn't get the message. It's not about opinions. Don't add a bunch of extra meanings to suit your argument.
The original comment was:
> just use claude code to use rclone on a server and let it run automatically, its great and easy
First, it says "use claude code to use rclone." It's very simple English, yet it directly contradicts your claim that "you're not even using Claude code to run rclone for you."
> Because that's the only way I'd understand someone to go on such rant.
Yeah, no wonder given the above.
Going back to the original comment, it says it's easy. Easier than not using Claude Code, which is typing `rclone copy .`. Every justification that you pulled out of thin air is more complicated than that.
> Is this what you'd do?
Again, you're not reading. Read my original comment. And the reply to your comment. I wouldn't use Claude Code in this situation. I'd just type `rclone copy .`.
Right, I see, so when there's an opportunity for a rant you get one specific, narrow meaning, discarding anything else, even if more relevant and sensible, and then you go off.
Maybe try Claude Code one day, then you'll recognise what that phrase was actually about.
All the best! You must need it with such attitude to life.
You literally made a bunch of things up and directly contradicted the statement you so vehemently defended. That's not "sensible," and pointing that out is very different from word lawyering. No amount of "trying Claude Code" will compensate for that.
Just calm down. You seem to be personally offended at the mere suggestion that Claude Code isn't a good fit for everything, or that it's not even more trustworthy than Google. That's just a fact, not a "rant." If you feel the impulse to throw a tantrum because of that, I genuinely urge you to revisit your relationship with your cloud subscription because it's definitely not healthy for you, or the people around you.
The proposal is only to eliminate the disease born mosquitoes, letting the other mosquitoes take over. So if your polity has eliminated mosquitoes it's likely using chemicals rather than a more environmentally sound choice.
Most mosquitoes are not the blood-sucking kind. It is possible to replace the blood-suckers with other species which still mostly fill the appropriate niches, like the birds' food chains, etc.
TLDR for this link is that they release male mosquitoes carrying a bacteria called Wolbachia. So this only affects the one species of mosquito they're targeting: Aedes aegypti.
It's not that it eliminated mosquitoes entirely but rather that it effectively eliminated mosquitoes in the genus Aedes.
These are some of the most problematic/disease causing of the mosquitoes but also notably mosquitoes in the Aedes genus are essentially the only mosquitoes that are "hunting" during the day. All the other mosquitoes operate almost exclusively in the evening and at nighttime.
So by eliminating these mosquitoes a major disease vector is eliminated but at the same time it completely eliminates mosquitoes during the day (i.e. the main time when you are out and about trying to enjoy the summer).
The article contains the following sentence: "In a randomized trial in Singapore, releases of Wolbachia-infected males cut mosquito populations by 85 percent compared to control areas and dengue infections by roughly 70 percent."
There are different things you can do to mosquitos with different techniques. The article discusses several different techniques. Some eliminate disease-spreading mosquitos, some eliminate the mosquitos. In Singapore, the latter was tried out. It is not the case that Singapore used chemicals.
lets say on the order of 1 billion, and let's assume the effectivity doesn't change when considering the 30% unaffected population
it would need to be applied to the surviving 30% repeatedly:
0.3 ^ N = 1 / 1B
so N = log(1B)/log(10/3) = ~17.2 times.
I predict nature protects itself with diversity: some of the male and female wild type will have natural aversion from, attraction to or neutral stance the modified Wolbachia carriers.
I predict that those mosquito family lines that happen to be more Wolbachia-carrier averse become enriched over time.
There is an energetic cost to maintaining a parasitic lifeform, and that energetic term will always favor immunity against the parasite.
The hosts originally had their normal wild type gene regulation.
After infection one can approximate the novel gene regulation to be a combination of the host wild type gene regulation, perturbed by the Wolbachia gene regulatory network.
The metabolic rate of the Wolbachia will be a function of genome variations in the wild type population. The population (even if fully infected) thus has access to a whole bunch of knobs (promoter region binding affinities) and can continuously shed the metabolic burden of the parasite by natural selection, since 2 infected mosquitos, with differing levels of Wolbachia metabolism / reproduction, will have more energy and amino acids available for flight, healinig / repair, eggs, ... so that over a number of generations the Wolbachia incidence rate falls back to equilibrium levels. Then its a matter of time until a dormant virus or a one of the many virus particles scattered in nature and a mosquito meet again.
The article discussed alternative methods that have succeeded in being deployed:
> The approach has succeeded at the scale of cities. In a randomized trial in Singapore, releases of Wolbachia-infected males cut mosquito populations by 85 percent compared to control areas and dengue infections by roughly 70 percent.
(mosquitos infected with Wolbachia are both more resistant to diseases, and fail to reproduce in the case of infected male x uninfected female)
Do they achieve it by regularly spraying poison on the air like they do in Malaysia? Feels like a pyrrhic victory to me. I know they were trialing genetic modification but I don't know how successful that was and I'm certain it's not the only thing they're doing.
I did read the article, actually. It says they did a randomized trial of wolbachia infected mosquities, presumably on a small area, while the person I was replying to was implying that all mosquitos in Singapore have been eradicated. So presumably they're also using other methods like DDT spraying.
It's answered in the article. The argument is not that giant creatures can't exist, but that they cannot exist as a simple scaled-up version of the otherwise identical smaller version.
i can’t read the article to see what the specifics are, but assuming it’s essentially the square-cube law it doesn’t mean giant creatures can’t exist, it’s that small creatures can’t scale to be giants while being unchanged.
again i’m guessing, but if the conclusion is something like “if giant humans existed, X, Y and Z wouldn’t work”. then a “giant humans” would have to be something decidedly non-human.
Crazy how intelligence is cheap, efficient and commonplace now.
We humans better refocusing our energy on our core values/principles, given most of our skills are becoming irrelevant
If it were commonplace, there wouldn't be a post and discussion about it. Cheap? Arguable - while it didn't cost thousands, it wasn't free. Cheap is in the eye of the beholder. Efficient...How do we even measure that? The massive infrastructure and training to take a product to the point where someone could do this is massive. Ignoring everything behind the scenes and acting like one session and result is the whole picture of efficiency doesn't seem right. And no, nothing produced by AI makes skills irrelevant. That is the whole ongoing argument of whether people are losing cognitive ability by moving their thinking to AI.
Overall, this is an impressive proof of capability. But I wouldn't take that proof as anything more than what it is.
Seconded on the "not cheap" argument here. I've spent $25 worth of tokens completing a one-week task in an afternoon, or rather my company spent the money. I would never have personally felt OK with throwing this much money after some prompting back and forth for a few hours, one lazy Saturday afternoon. I ran the risk of not finding the solution before the token usage would be too high for me to want to carry on, if I was my own credit card linked to the account.
Of course money in this situation is a bit of a funny measurement, right, because if I was able to take the rest of the week off as soon as I had solved the one-week problem, then I would have no problem at all throwing even $100 worth of tokens at it, so I could enjoy a nice 4-day "mini-vacation".
How cheap "cheap" is, is indeed "in the eye of the beholder".
It's not sarcasm. If I had to pay $25 to perform my work from an ever-growing pile of projects, I would be losing money. That's not "cheap intelligence" for me. It certainly is for my employer, though, because for the mere price of $25 extra per day they can get 4*X the product per period of time.
In Scrum terms my personal velocity grows by a factor of four or more with access to agentic AI workload, but if it means that I will just be asked to "consume" 4*X more Story Points per sprint, I'm not the winner in the end, my employer is. If they asked me to complete X Story Points per sprint regardless of my velocity, and they let me take the days off when I was done, I would be the winner. But that's not how it works.
AI is "Cheap" for the person/organization that gets more product for less money, not for the individual person building the product faster.
If I'm getting paid for the work, I'm happy to leverage the LLMs so I can do more. If I'm paying for the work, I expect more from it.
For hobbyist stuff, where I'm not expecting to receive money? LLMs let me do things I otherwise wouldn't have done.
I've agreed with thoughts like "the LLM wrote the code, surely it's not worth sharing" or "I could just have the LLM write my own version of that". I'd also wondered about my own personal projects, surely "an LLM could have written all of this". -- But how I feel about that changes a bit based on how much it'd take the LLMs to get the same output.
I mostly agree, these are things that couldn't or weren't solved with abundant capital at all, and now they are being solved
it went from not having a price, to having one, and we are trying to retroactively transpose economic viability or economic existence to it from some parallel and prior time.
A counter argument: A strong distinction between "intelligence" (understanding what is) and "values/principles" (understanding what ought to be) was characteristic of much early modern European philosophy from Descartes to Kant, which received its influential strong formulation from David Hume.
But trying to maintain this distinction leads to insuperable difficulties. Our conceptual framework for understanding the world are always value-laden. There is no "view from nowhere", no historically unconditioned set of values or concepts. Your framing, in which "values" are external to "intelligence" and must be imposed on it (on pain of intelligence being "value-neutral"), leads inevitably to the dead end of "AI Alignment", "superintelligence", etc. Which is a kind of pseudo-theology.
"We humans better [be] refocusing our energy on our core values/principles, given most of our skills are becoming irrelevant."
In light of the untenability of a strong fact/value or intelligence/ethics distinction, I would suggest this alternative advice: humans should focus on critical appropriation and extension of the received wisdom, whether that comes to us directly from human beings or indirectly through an LLM. Perhaps this is compatible with the spirit of your original suggestion.
It's still clear that LLMs lack spatial reasoning, either in the concrete or abstract, and while that sort of reasoning has been downplayed by academia for at least a century it is fundamental to technology and industry. (And many would say for science and mathematics too).
They will, however, get there as well either directly or as interfaces to models that do, and your core point stands.
"Lack" isn't the right word. "Lacking" is more like it.
If there was a deep fundamental inability, we wouldn't see things like newer generations of LLMs consistently improving on ARC-AGI series (heavy spatial reasoning loading) and SimpleBench (a lot of commonsense + spatial reasoning components).
In a way, it's a surprise that LLMs, notoriously lacking any sort of embodied experience, can even get this close to human baselines on tasks like this.
My takeaway is that text is a far richer modality than anyone has expected - and that high end LLMs are often sharp and flexible enough to recognize their weak points and substitute their strengths. I.e. all the LLMs implementing A* to optimally solve pathfinding in ARC-AGI-3 tasks, often unprompted.
There might still be unrealized gains there from true depth-unbounded recurrence, or maybe from finding better ways to integrate modalities in training. But clearly, a "fundamental limit" it ain't.
> "Lack" isn't the right word. "Lacking" is more like it.
Yeah, that's fair.
> My takeaway is that text is a far richer modality than anyone has expected - and that high end LLMs are often sharp and flexible enough to recognize their weak points and substitute their strengths. I.e. all the LLMs implementing A* to optimally solve pathfinding in ARC-AGI-3 tasks, often unprompted.
I agree and disagree with this. I think we've learned a lot of humans are more text based than we thought, but conversely I'm not persuaded what non-textual task reasoning LLMs are doing is necessarily text based, just that models have grown large enough for other reasoning modes to conceivably be hiding in the parameter space.
As I mentioned elsewhere, like many others I find LLMs work entirely by example, and reaching for A* when pathfinding is the single obvious thing to do. In cases where the magic key word is not mentioned and the problem cannot be identified as "pathfinding" (or some other trigger with a highly specific widely documented solution) they will struggle, yet the moment the trigger is hit they get there very fast. This is why prompting remains such an art form.
Fable is the first one I've encountered that is capable of serious open ended 3D programming in ways that suggest it has some grasp of the spatial aspects of the problem (not merely symbolic manipulation of the vectors etc.), but it still misses optimization opportunities a human will find glaringly obvious based on spatially predictable bounds etc.
Grown? LLMs were always "large enough for other reasoning modes to conceivably be hiding in the parameter space".
Basic LLMs don't reason in text, and never did. They use it as an interface - for input, output and some of the intermediate products. Heavy use of those "pseudo-recurrence" intermediates in "reasoning models" is a relatively late post-training adaptation. But the process that happens between those endpoints is not at all text-based. What happens in the hidden dimension is part "output logit domain", tied to probability distributions over possible output tokens, and part "incomprehensible concept-space madness".
The latter being where things like latent world models live. LLMs develop partial world models, right in pre-training, despite not being explicitly forced to - because it brings them closer to heaven of accurate next token prediction.
And yes, larger models like Fable seem to be better at spatial reasoning. Maybe because their large size increases the sample efficiency and improves generalization, allowing them to absorb the sparse signal of "spatial reasoning" in the training text better. Maybe because this extra size means more layers, allowing for deeper latent space reasoning in lieu of true recurrence. Maybe because the default "next token prediction" reward underrates rare spatial reasoning challenges, and the model only starts to "get good" at them once the other sources of loss reduction are heavily depleted. Maybe because no true recurrence is suboptimal for spatial reasoning architecturally. But it is what it is. Spatial reasoning gains in LLMs are extractable, but extracting them is nontrivial.
I will be posting something to that effect later this week. (Hopefully).
Basically current gen LLMs apparently do spatial reasoning the way they seemingly do everything else: by reference to previous example. I didn't see them work out which known example to use for a given problem until specifically prompted, in my case by accident.
If you ask an LLM, "what known example did you use to solve this?" it is very likely to cite something plausible-sounding. That absolutely doesn't mean it is what it actually did. It is trying to give the "right answer" and please.
> If you ask an LLM, "what known example did you use to solve this?" it is very likely to cite something plausible-sounding. That absolutely doesn't mean it is what it actually did. It is trying to give the "right answer" and please.
That's not what I said happened though. It didn't solve the problem (for weeks) until I (accidentally) told it which example it happened to know was relevant, and then it solved it in hours.
On a token level, text tokens are orders of magnitude more information dense than visual tokens.
You don't have to do much statistical analysis to figure out what is meant by the token string "cat under a tree". However you need to do an enormous amount to encode any permutation of pixels that show a cat under a tree from the set of all possible pixels arrangements that illustrate that (along with the massive fringes of ambiguity).
Everybody can be an armchair mathematician now. Just fling some thoughts in the direction of your AI setup and let it do breadth first search with AI based pruning heuristics.
If you really believe this, try to use GPT 5.6 to prove an open problem you know nothing about. You might get lucky, but if you don't, you will soon discover that 5.6 can make "progress" towards a theorem without actually getting anywhere pretty much indefinitely.
I generally agree, though direction, intuition, and domain knowledge are still relevant. Your breadth-first-search framing feels right, but you still need a sense of which paths are worth following, and you need to know when to trust the results.
I’ve been doing more math as a hobby in the past few weeks — working on lesser-known conjectures and exploring proofs of hard theorems — than I could have managed over the previous several years. It’s an exciting time.
I imagine there are hundreds of thousands of people doing this, yet all we seem to get is a handful of solved problems. So it would seem the success rate is extremely low.
Intelligence on its own is not very useful though. We put it on a pedestal because it creates huge potential when paired with other things, wisdom, discipline, empathy, but on its own?
You've not seen how they react to noobs asking physics questions, I think.
Even when you've got an interesting idea, if you're an enthusiastic amateur who don't yet know enough to phrase the question right but does actually know the basics, they'll put you in the same category as the people who think healing crystals can power hyperspace telepathy with Anubis: "oh no not another one".
LLMs have infinite patience, but unfortunately come (came?) with too much sycophancy, giving even more people far too much confidence.
That view is incredibly reductionist. It really is an efficient encoding of how nature behaves. It might be a human construct, but given how best it allows to understand nature (through principles of physics), it is uncanny to be any different from the language of nature.
Reminds me of Wigner's Unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in natural sciences [0].
Nature has no language. Language is a human tool to imperfectly describe nature. Putting language before nature is magical thinking (also known as Platonism).
Yes, of course mathematics is a tool to model nature as accurately as we could. That still doesn't mean mathematics is as trivial or frivolous as manipulating symbols.
At a very high level mathematics is basically 100% text/symbolic rewriting. You start from some set of postulate assumed true and you do your thing to get a new different set of equivalent assertions in a form that is more useful.
I don’t know if LLMs will kill the working-mathematicians but at least seem like that it doesn’t seem absurd to imagine LLMs will be good at math…
I can't stop wondering myself.... I'm writing some software with AI and wondering, why am I doing this? Will anyone need this? Will anyone have money to buy this?
Best I've come up with is we'll need to be adopted by technofeudlaist overlords to be our patrons like in the roman days
> Best I've come up with is we'll need to be adopted by technofeudlaist overlords to be our patrons like in the roman days
Continually progressing AI (combined with our current socioeconomic systems) throws a lot of uncertainty into our mid to long term future, but I don't think this is going to be what happens.
There are billions more of "us" than of "them", people don't respond well en masse to a drastic worsening of their societal status and "they" are lagging very far behind on building their robot armies.
If we poorly navigate this transition the outcome should be worrying them more than it worries us.
> There are billions more of "us" than of "them", people don't respond well en masse to a drastic worsening of their societal status and "they" are lagging very far behind on building their robot armies.
Fortunately, yes, those robot armies do seem to be rather behind schedule*.
However, even if Musk dies of old age before anything like the Optimus can be connected to useful artificial intelligence, it can still be driven by the common joke a few years back that "AI" really stood for "Actually Indians".
When all the people currently upset about "immigrants coming here taking our jobs" discover those same people are now staying home and remote-working those same jobs over a VR headset and a Starlink connection... my guess is that by this point, Musk will have no political allies left.
> If we poorly navigate this transition the outcome should be worrying them more than it worries us.
It can screw everyone over. Literal communism was invented in response to Laissez-faire capitalism, and while Laissez-faire died with the Great Depression, the form of capitalism which succeeded it in the USA came into conflict with the USSR and gave us the Cold War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, etc.
The infinite monkey theorem assumes random distribution of symbols*.
Given the tokenizers have a vocabulary in the 10k-100k range, "a million attempts" will generally still only get the first token of the answer correct.
Even really rubbish models, e.g. talkie, the "what if we only use pre-1930s data to train a model?"** model, had to be almost all the way to the right answer to reach the really low HumanEval pass@100 score of ~0.04 (I'm only eyeballing the relevant chart).
* Actual monkeys not being like this is, while amusing, irrelevant
Even if every atom in the universe were a supercomputer generating a trillion trillion random characters every second since the Big Bang, the chance of producing Hamlet would still be essentially zero.
reply