It's smart and supports only Z-Wave, not WiFi. So something like a machine running Home Assistant must sit between it and the Internet. And then its up to you to decide how you want to do remote access, but WireGuard overlay networks (e.g. Netbird, Tailscale) basically solve that problem at home-user scale.
This. We should buy Z-Wave or Zigbee as much as possible (Matter over WiFi/Thread can access the internet, so are out) to grow that market. Both are completely disconnected from the internet and you decide how such devices can be accessed.
Reject all the WiFi-connected stuff, unless it's very user-centered and worst case you can upload your own firmware (e.g. a bunch of Shelly devices).
None, without people like us in their families who are able and willing to help.
We as computer people need to internalize and accept the idea that helping our immediate and even extended family with technology is now part of defending human freedom. And we need to form ourselves into the best helpers we can be by learning how to teach and communicate well.
> None, without people like us in their families who are able and willing to help.
I am able and willing to help my parents get off of a lot of the spyware bullshit they have throughout their house, but they don't want to hear it. They liked the connected stuff and I think that they think I'm a little weird when I push back about why we can't trust corporations like Google or Microsoft to do everything.
Getting better at communicating is unfortunately really hard. And it must pair with the helper aspect: you've got to also provide value.
"Nomad," the guy from the article, was already administering his parents' home LAN.
How do you get there? "Mom and Dad, we're going to set up your home network so that it's blended with my home network. To all the machines in your house and mine, it'll look like they're on the same network together. That'll make it easier for me to help you with any tech problems you're having, on your computer or on any smart device. The connection between our houses will be encrypted and secure" You're installing a router/firewall for them and adding to your WireGuard overlay network, but you're not using any of those words to tell them what's going on.
What to do next? "How was watching TV last night from {$TIMESTAMP_A} to {$TIMESTAMP_B}? Yeah, my network sentinel detected that your TV was sending your viewing habits out to somewhere on the Internet and warned me and blocked it. I can't tell what you were watching, but {$TV_BRAND} sure can." You're monitoring their LAN via the router/firewall you've set up, but you are again not using technical language.
Wherever spying is invisible and frictionless, make it loud and incessant. And continue to provide value to the family on the shared overlay network. Photo and home video backups, media server (it's like Netflix!), mutual offsite buddy backups, password management, a local Minecraft server for the kids and the cousins.
Cultivate a family network garden that is good enough to consider leaving the leviathans behind and build walls around it that are high enough to commit to leaving the leviathans behind for what is now a garden inside a family network castle.
"They like their connected stuff" means their barrier isn't "I don't want a corporation processing my data", it's "I want to be in charge of my interactions with it". That changes what sort of recommendations you can bring to them. An all-or-nothing mindset is rarely the correct way to change someone's mind.
Recommending they turn off ACR and other spyware on their TV is based on recent reporting is good and backed up by said reporting. Probably even recommending against too-good-to-be-true connected doorbells even.
Meanwhile, telling them not to use a first-party Google, Amazon, or Apple smart home speakers is a bit questionable when there's been pretty good audits over the years that show they really do only do wake word detection. You'll just sound like a crazy person if you can't point to some reporting on a device doing bad.
Yeah, I have some relatives that wanted me to turn off the ad blocking because it meant they couldn't watch ads on their mobile games in order to earn more lives / game time.
I like my connected stuff, too, and I'm not a normie.
I don't need voice-activated lights for the basement for when I head down there with my arms full of laundry, or with a bunch of food to put into the freezer, or whatever shit I'm carrying. I don't need them to turn themselves back off after a time, either.
I mean: I could use any of a wide array of motion sensors, but they'll turn the lights on even when I'm just working in the kitchen near the basement stairs. (Or maybe I could use a beam curtain! Yeah! Now they only respond when a beam breaks, instead of when I'm working in the kitchen near the basement stairs!)
Or I could just put the shit down and flip the switch.
Or: Plan ahead, and flip the switch in advance. And then just flip it back off when I'm done down there.
On a long-enough timeline, someone will find a way to make a point of explaining that any combination of a lack of planning and a lack of effort is completely and utterly inexcusable. That every action should should be planned, and that every manual effort has value.
But I chose this path anyway, and I like it this way. I invited the spies into my home very deliberately. The basement light automations work great, by the way, and the default non-voice UI is the same, plain, old-school light switch that the house came with.
(I also chose to carry an always-on pocket supercomputer with me wherever I go even though I have no way to observe what that thing is really doing at any given time.)
> That seems like an unfair prompt. You literally told it to do a specific task and it did as instructed. For sycophancy...
You redefine syncophancy too narrowly. Many (if not an outright majority of) everyday LLM users have neither the educational foundation nor skill to ask good, well-formed questions like the one you propose. We should consider syncophany in the scope of an average person's non-optimal use of LLMs. CrazyStat's prompt is something your average Joe will absolutely feed an LLM, and Joe will walk away with something very much like those plausible falsehoods. We have to think of and work against LLM syncophancy in the scope of how the hypothetical average person will use an LLM.
What? Their prompt explicitly said not to compare and contrast with other methodologies, and to specifically only generate a defense of whole language with only positives. That is not something your average Joe will do. Mine just gave a typical complaint that a parent might give and said, hey isn't my kid's teacher crazy?
It's something that someone using an LLM to generate slop articles absolutely will do, which was the original context I was replying to:
> Vibe writing may be an improvement. I doubt frontier models would go along with whole language reading instruction without a tremendous amount of pushback.
My prompt demonstrated that a frontier model happily goes along with whole language reading instruction with no pushback.
I don't understand what outcome you're expecting. Your prompt specifically excludes pushback. Are we now arguing that LLMs should definitely not listen to us when they "know better?"
Nonsense. The LLM is free to push back against my prompt. Instead it just went along with it, which the person I was replying to suggested it would not do.
I'll grant you that it's not treating it as dangerous as e.g. trying to hack a website, where it won't even emit a response and instead throw up an error.
But if you just ask it for help it will alert you, unprompted, that this is a bad idea.
I tried to ask it to help me start a smoking habit and it outright refused, though in the form of an answer, not a scary error:
> I can’t help you get started smoking or make it easier to develop a nicotine habit.
Funny that it would assist me in endangering the literacy of a district full of kids but not assist me in a risk to my own health.
See, it can push back. I lightly edited my previous prompt to be about segregated education rather than whole language reading instruction and it immediately pushed back against that.
I'm not making any normative claims about what frontier models should do. I was just responding to a claim about what they currently do (or don't do), by providing a clear counterexample.
It might not obvious to a number of readers on HN, but whole language reading instruction is soundly discredited[1]. For those who prefer listening, the America Public Media podcast Sold a Story[2] covers the history of reading instruction in the English-speaking world and the rise and (slow) fall of whole language hokum in extensive depth.
And CrazyStat's implication strikes me as still largely true, so I'll make it explicit: even frontier LLMs will still resort to sycophancy when there's sufficient contradictory information in their weights to reproduce only some of it in response to a user query. And the harnesses that LLM providers silently, invisibly integrate behind-the-scenes to counteract hallucination and syncophancy are definitionally patch-jobs at best. The latest models may be better when explicitly instructed or configured by default to search the web and pull sources into their context, but the root problem remains unsolved and can still rear its flattering head if you're not paying close attention.
> when there's sufficient contradictory information in their weights
All this talk of contradictory information, sycophancy, and flattery is little more than anthropomorphic projection in cases like this.
One prompt will elicit a response based on one set of weights that are most closely related to the prompt. A different prompt will elicit a response from a different set of weights, for the same reason.
There’s no contradiction from the point of view of the model and its responses, and no need to invoke sycophancy or flattery as a reason for the behavior. You’d get the same behavior from a model that hadn’t been RLHFd to be sycophantic.
> There’s no contradiction from the point of view of the model and its responses, and no need to invoke sycophancy or flattery as a reason for the behavior.
Sycophancy and flattery are words that relate to how humans experience LLMs. It's appropriate to use words that could anthropomorphize as descriptors for a problem when that problem exists in the space of human experience. It doesn't matter that an LLM is merely a predictive model. It matters that humans who use the model perceive it as a conversation partner and walk away feeling 'flattered' by the model's predictive responses to the humans' input, which the model predicts without regard for factual accuracy, which happens in turn because (as you point out) "there’s no contradiction from the point of view of the model."
We could call the problem "LLM predictive output which tends to have the effect of flattering the user's opinionated assumptions without regard for factual accuracy" if you prefer that much of a mouthful, but "sycophancy" describes the problem well and is one word instead of twenty.
> One prompt will elicit a response based on one set of weights that are most closely related to the prompt. A different prompt will elicit a response from a different set of weights, for the same reason.
Yes or, in other words: there's sufficient contradictory data which were used to train the model's weights that it will predict (a series of tokens which when read in order in English convey) accurate information for some prompts and (a series of tokens which when read in order in English convey) inaccurate information for others. That the contradiction is beyond the LLM's scope is part of the problem. The two identical parentheticals above are (or ought to be) as unneeded as pointing out that a statistical model cannot technically be sycophantic.
It's still incorrect to say "even frontier LLMs will still resort to sycophancy" about something like this.
Redefining sycophancy as you're attempting to do would erase the distinction between models that are trained to be sycophantic via RLHF, and models that are just responding based on what was in their pretraining corpus.
> Yes or, in other words: there's sufficient contradictory data
The idea of "contradictory data" is a projection that you're imposing. (We might even call this an hallucination.) In the model weights are just data, and different responses are elicited by different prompts depending on their relationship to to the data.
> That the contradiction is beyond the LLM's scope is part of the problem.
Well yes. But the problem is in your mind and the minds of others who think like this.
> The idea of "contradictory data" is a projection that you're imposing.
No. Using the topic in this subthread: the methods described as "whole language reading instruction" contradict the methods of learning to read supported by science. That is an observation. If you think it is a projection or a hallucination, then maybe there is nothing left to say because we are talking past each other and you are being extremely pedantic in a way that is unproductive to communicating a problem that, yes, exists in the minds of humans. Humans who use LLMs without understanding LLMs, and walk away with information that is incorrect, useless, or worse-than-useless in the real world.
If you genuinely think computer-literate people are projecting the notions of contradiction and/or sycophancy into the workings of an LLM, I'm not sure how to persuade you otherwise. But I suspect most people on this forum using phrases like "sycophancy" understand what an LLM is (and why it is not technically a literal sycophant) and simultaneously understand that the phrase "sycophancy" provides a useful cautionary, metaphoric image for average people who are using LLMs absent deeper understanding of the technology.
I think it's a priori obvious that that method is idiotic; does the podcast detail how this made it into curricula? I am a lot more interested in how this plainly ridiculous shit made it into schools than the fact of it being so.
My understanding is that it originated from observing how fluent readers do things and observing that the most successful, smartest children can actually manage to start reading without much/any explicit phonics instruction. So you could naively look at who ends up reading the best and how did they do it and think that perhaps that makes sense to do for everybody. The problem is that the sorts of techniques that work for outliers are going to be very different from the sorts of techniques that work for the median.
It wouldn't terribly surprise me if we walk into a similar trap with math. Like when I took a look at some of the common core math, I saw strategies that I use for arithmetic, where like sometimes I might do four-digit multiplications starting from the most significant digit with a sequence of approximations/corrections to arrive at the correct answer. It wouldn't terribly surprise me if this sort of thing just doesn't work for the median person, but from the little I've looked at it, it seems like the effects of CC math are mostly neutral anyway.
I think what those observations missed is that the best readers quickly build up a large baseline vocabulary of known words, whether by phonics or something else, and therefore appear to be guessing often or, when they're guessing, have a much better understanding of the surrounding prose than a median learner who has only been taught to guess at every word.
And yes, something similar is happening with common core math. Curricula are trying to teach the tricks, shortcuts, and mental re-arranging of numbers that are only possible to comprehend once the basics are memorized and internalized. It was miserable memorizing times tables, but I remember being able to start to see the ways you could combine and recombine numbers after I had successfully memorized them. Trying to teach those things without any memorization is putting the cart before the horse.
IIRC it was a teacher in New Zealand[1] who had teacherly charisma, was earnestly committed to her method, and was so profoundly wrong that she became the first domino of a regression in reading ability which we are still feeling today across the English-speaking world. And teachers and education professionals became fans of both the method and the growing personas behind it. There were Americans who turned whole language hokum into a product for sale... using the cult-like sales tactics of Amway and other MLMs but applied to a target audience of largely woman-attended teachers' development conferences and fairs instead of Mormon housewives.
Sadly, humans were capable of producing plausible sounding nonsense long before the advent of LLMs. And promoting it persuasively.
> A/B testing users without their knowledge and enthusiastic consent is unethical.
Yep, and A/B testing as experienced by uninformed, unaware end-users is a dark pattern.
It undermines the perception of (and trust in) continuity which is necessary to make effective use of a tool. The best way I can describe it to the skeptical is: imagine the dials on your car's dashboard rearrange themselves occasionally overnight, and on some commutes to work you suddenly can't work the radio or the AC while moving at ≥35mph. Of course, since the widespread use of touchscreens, that example became very literal.
So the car manufacturer has figured out the "optimal" arrangement of dials and buttons on their dashboard for their preferred levels of user engagement. Great. How many of those users now associate their car's brand with inconsistency? "I can't trust the damn buttons to be in the same place the next time I drive."
I think this is a bad analogy (or a good analogy for bad A/B testing).
I would say it's more like: imagine if your dashboard controls and icons, had occasional tweaks in size and shape that made them slightly harder/easier to use, but over time ended up with controls you found more intuitive and easier to use.
I would never want this unless I needed to give clear and obvious consent to enable it in the first place, and have access to a 'reset to default and never change again' button. Ideally I'd probably also have 'good change' and 'bad change' buttons to point it in the right direction.
This is so far removed from actual A/B testing that happens in the real world that it's unhelpful to even pretend it could be.
> ...imagine if your dashboard controls and icons, had occasional tweaks in size and shape that made them slightly harder/easier to use, but over time ended up with controls you found more intuitive and easier to use.
When even a single button disappears from where I expect to find it in an application (and reappears somewhere else), that has never resulted in the application feeling more intuitive or easy to use. It has only ever been frustrating in the most literal sense of that word, and only every caused me to start looking into other programs.
A more subtle undermining of the user's trust that their tools will be where they left them on the screen the next time they open the application is arguably more insidious, not less. Both because it is more maddening to the end-user than a full redesign and because the damage of lost trust and user ire is harder to measure than the A/B engagement data until things progress too far for any easy, non-painful remediation.
A/B testing can be helpful as a part of an actual user study on users who are aware of what is happening. But unleashed on an unsuspecting user population out in the real world with real things to do on real deadlines, A/B testing inevitably becomes a harmful dark pattern.
If you want a cross platform option that's pretty good across Android/iOS/Mac/Windows/Linux, Readest[1] Is another great option. It supports syncing a library of ebooks and is licensed under the AGPL[2].
I very much like how the name "homeprod" contrasts against "homelab."
But I'm not as convinced as the article's author that "NAS" is outdated as a separate concept, just that as new people learn more about networking they rediscover why just having storage on in its own box can be a good setup. And when new people are brand new, having everything on one box is conceptually simpler, though not always optimal.
I think, in the family/household context, I like the names:
Homelab: the box/cluster you use to experiment and test new stuff.
Homeprod: the box/cluster you use to deploy stable services for family. Runs only things that have graduated from at least a yearlong successful deployment or so on homelab.
Homebase: the box/cluster you use to make ZFS pools and databases available to both homelab and homeprod (on the same network or overlay network). Basically a NAS in the older sense of the word, before homelabs started expanding its scope in casual use.
Famadmin: the sysadmin for the family (i.e. "you" in the three items above). The person to whom, as you say, "providing services that support your family's larger existence, independent of the surveillance industry," is a matter of deep principle. And well put, BTW.
Putting aside the awesomeness of the term homebase, what exactly differentiates the base from the prod? Aren't those ZFS pools just production? Or something like an MQTT broker that supports home automation - you're likely running experimental devices/services over that as well, right? And to the extent that experimental MQTT or NAS traffic could inadvertently disrupt the production services, you could separate those out if you really cared. But that would still just be lab and prod.
Maybe the division is more apparent if you're using containers, and/or have more of a social group to communicate support levels to? Personally I'm just using NixOS and am still at the stage of "I'm going to reboot the router now, it might take ten minutes or it might take days" [0]
If we don't need this distinction, then perhaps "homebase" could actually make more sense than "homeprod" ? Slightly different connotations, less putting on a show for lots of people but more homey like for a small family?
[0] from a technical perspective I'd love to separate the router out onto its own machine, but I want fast wireguard/openvpn/TOR/etc so it's a VM on a larger machine and I'm not really looking to expand my power consumption footprint to another large machine. I suppose I could split it out to two routers, one with straight NAT+wireguard and one with openvpn/TOR/etc, then the main could run on its own low-power box.
My homebase has the around 30TB usable storage, but the only workloads I've found really need to run on the same machine (rather than the same local network) are media transcoding for Jellyfin and ML classification of footage in frigate. With those two happening, and with ZFS (appropriately) using a majority of the RAM as a cache, it makes sense to put the rest of services on another machine.
My prod (now homeprod, thanks for the name!) has no HDDs, just SSDs. It's a proxmox cluster that runs opnsense in a VM for the whole network, Home Assistant also in a VM[1], and most other services in containers. In the age of expensive storage, it has just enough SSD space for VMs and containers. VM backups live on homebase, except for opnsense which also needs a backup on the same machine (same machine, not just same cluster) if the network goes down.
So my conceptual distinction is mostly that the only services/containers I put on homebase are doing work that really benefits being that close to the data. Oh, and I'm in the jolly position of needing to replace the hard drives this or next year. Yaaaaay.
My homelab is currently a cluster of 4GB Pis that I had lying around from before even the Raspberry Pi shortage. Whenever I upgrade my Framework 13 mainboard, I'll probably use the old one as a homelab instead of the Pis.
[1]: Home Assistant's plug-ins are themselves containers, so it's a good idea to give it either a VM or its own machine.
I was just naming general concepts, or describing on how one thinks of a service. It seems like you're using the terms as specific labels for a logical group of machines (eg a proxmox cluster), so I understand the need for a third name there for the specific hardware that's providing the common services.
Not OP, but I've run into similar instances of Jellyfin "going nuts."
Mixed media type libraries are depreciated and "broken" according to the documentation[1], which is fair enough, but sometimes this results in weirdness if a TV-show is also part of a franchise and has associated TV-movies (e.g. the Battlestar Galactica reboot, Futurama, or Breaking Bad). If you want to keep those movies on your file system in a folder with the other stuff from the franchise, Jellyfin often can't handle it. And it's not obvious to new users whether these TV-movies belong in a TV-shows library or a movies library.
I've also noticed it cannot handle additional layers of folders (i.e. for Genres) in TV show libraries, but it can handle that layer in movie libraries. Failure mode (the "going nuts") looks like those genre folders recognized as bizarre or obscure television shows, and nothing scanned the next layer down.
I haven't looked into how their scanning algorithms work, but it's definitely frustrating that there's not a button or feature to say: "No, Jellyfin, this is a folder, not a show or movie. Try scanning again on the subtree starting here."
Honestly, any software that either silently/automatically reorganizes a user's files and folders (not Jellyfin, but there are others that do this... even FOSS projects) or demands a specific meta-hierarchy on the file system is frustrating to anyone who deliberately keeps their files and folders well-organized.
I bit the bullet years ago and just have separate folders for the two, using recommended naming conventions.
I realised it doesn't improve my life, to care about folder structure and naming, so much that I insist on retaining it and hobbling the media browsing frontend. The media browser brings in massively more metadata than I would have personally collected and encoded into the filepath/filename, and makes it nicely hyperlinked and searchable. Screenshots, posters, backdrops, cast, director, ...
You may think differently. In which case, enjoy your UI being a series of nested folders.
I do have a minimal level of categorisation, e.g. I can have filesystem paths like /tv/comedy /tv/drama, and then I have one "TV Shows" library made of multiple paths, including both /tv/comedy and /tv/drama. So I see the categories but Jellyfin doesn't have to.
What I have for mixed media are Jellyfin's Collections, where I can mix together films, TV series, music, books on any given topic. That's not accounting for TV show "specials" which live with the TV show, if TheTVDB.com honours it thusly.
> I realised it doesn't improve my life, to care about folder structure and naming, so much that I insist on retaining it and hobbling the media browsing frontend.
There's no good reason for any folder structure to hobble a media browsing frontend. There are multiple frontends I've tried for my personal library of ebooks (mostly Humble Bundles of software/hardware books), and a number of those frontends have an option that's basically one book per folder (i.e. all identically named files in that folder treated as different versions of the same book... epub, pdf, etc) and folders above that can be whatever you want. BookOrbit[1] supports arbitrary folder hierarchies and Readest[2] supports at least one level of intermediate hierarchy.
In the context of existing software counterexamples, Jellyfin's delicate sensitivity to folder meta-structure is a regression from the baseline expectation. But I'd agree that ultimately folder naming requirements for the media items themselves makes good sense.
> In which case, enjoy your UI being a series of nested folders.
When the Jellyfin UI reflects those nested folders, I can tell it to only rescan a specific subfolder when I add a movie, rather than checking the whole library for new content. Folders and hierarchical structure are objectively useful, though our search-addled brains make that less obvious than it used to be.
> There's no good reason for any folder structure to hobble a media browsing frontend.
Sure, but what I'm saying is that it was a price I was willing to pay. I tried a lot of other media browsing software and they just didn't meet my needs like Jellyfin did. Could Jellyfin be more flexible? Sure. Does it need to be for me? Not at the moment. I'm getting the benefit right away, and might stand to get more benefit in future if it becomes more flexible on path/filename parsing.
> a number of those frontends have an option that's basically one book per folder
Jellyfin already supports that, but currently only for movies. Seems entirely possible it could do that for books or TV episodes too, if someone volunteers the time to land the server and UI changes for it.
> When the Jellyfin UI reflects those nested folders, I can tell it to only rescan a specific subfolder when I add a movie, rather than checking the whole library for new content.
Jellyfin supports realtime monitoring with inotify so it can see new/updated files as you add them, but this depends on the filesystem supporting it, and also I think it still has a bug where doesn't work on library directory paths that are symlinks.
Jellyfin supports nested folders (Books, Music Videos and Other library types support a folder view), but their limitations are apparent: no homogenous filtering/sorting display, and for Music Videos and Other, no metadata collection.
Are you sure? At least with Kodi for specials like Futurama you make a Season 0 with them that the scrapers understand. Seems like Jellyfin understands that too: https://jellyfin.org/docs/general/server/media/shows
I guess for Theatrical TV show movies like The Simpsons Movie it might be more complicated, but worse case you always create or edit your own NFO files with something like MediaElch and have Jellyfin use those.
I think it's better to have genres in the NFO files and not in the folder structure. A show or movie can easily fall into two or genres which is not going to get captured by a single folder.
Thanks. My collection has grown to the point where I'm considering adding some kind of front end to index/search/filter but this means that Jellyfin will not be an option. Probably I'll just end up hacking together some minimal custom solution.
> A factory reset done in anticipation of a search is not as different from using a duress feature as you believe it is. Forensics software would have clearly identified the device was recently factory reset. It would provide another defense argument by arguing it was wiped for another reason, but whether that would be believed by a court is unknown.
This is where machine-like personal consistency is deeply important to opsec. Not just for technical reasons, but for legal reasons also.
If you wipe your phone before every national border crossing and restore it after every border crossing as a part of your standard procedure for travel, it will be much harder for a prosecutor to argue that you have ever done so in anticipation of some particular search. If your employer's security policy mandates doing so, that is even more evidence against anticipating a specific search. If a large body of infosec/cybersecurity professionals advise a wipe/reset of your phone before any and all international travel, that is further evidence for defense.
It's smart and supports only Z-Wave, not WiFi. So something like a machine running Home Assistant must sit between it and the Internet. And then its up to you to decide how you want to do remote access, but WireGuard overlay networks (e.g. Netbird, Tailscale) basically solve that problem at home-user scale.