This seems more of a battle for frontier AI supremacy. I'm afraid that small capable models have been left in the dust. Big labs don't really want to hand over the golden eggs goose to the end user. Possibly the hardware vendors(e.g. Nvidia) may want to play in that area as well, to pull money from all parties.
The probability is high that major AI development companies are already using an AI instance internally for strategic and tactical decisions. The State power institutions, especially intelligence, are now having a real competitor in the private sector.
I have created a simulation of how a tree can be grown from a programmable cellular automata. Each cell executes some operations, including replication, based on the surrounding conditions and its age/iteration.
More complex organisms can be grown with this technique.
This insight makes one wonder if the same thing applies to humans as well. Are we just the sum of our experiences? Or the architectures of our brains are much more complex and different so that they have more influence on the outputs for the same inputs?
As many have stated here, the problem is not that there aren't good data exchange protocols in the world, the problem is the PROTOCOL or the MODEL by which the world works, which is maximizing financial profit, not civilizational profit. Humanity is not yet capable of acting as a whole, we're still in a paradigm where each part is trying to rule the other parts. With this kind of mindset, a territorial mindset, it's only logical that every actor out there is trying to control as much as it can, and create an advantage for itself. That's why no sharing and cooperation data protocol catches, because those are incompatible with the current state of Affairs.
This is amazing!
There are a lot of low level things that I don't really grasp and, while going through the APE description, I saw this: "The other tradeoff is the GCC Runtime Exception forbids code morphing, but I already took care of that for you, by rewriting the GNU runtimes".
Can somebody, please, explain if allowing code morphing will increase security risks?
I'm not talking about a zillion protocols with discoverable services, but of a single language of the internet that allows service discoverability and concept sharing dynamically between peers.
What I think we need is Interoperability, not just protocols. What I understand by interoperability is what a mature (spoken) language provides. Although its body of words remains pretty much fixed, it offers a wide range of expression. I think that what we need is a language of the internet to achieve this type of interoperability. So, in a way, a language can be seen as a communication protocol and, with such a language, two systems can talk and discover and consume each other's services. This language shouldn't change too much, but it should be complex enough, to start with, in order to allow a high degree of expression and, ultimately, interoperability.
I'm really not that knowledgeable about the alternatives. I would say that this is a very rudimentary form of IRC in terms of functionalities, but with encrypted connection between the nodes and making it easy for a user to run its own node. It offers a basic video conferencing feature as well.
Hi, creator here.
This is a basic anonymous chat with video conferencing, implemented over a federated network of nodes that communicate over encrypted connections, exchanging events.
Basically, anyone can run their own node and access the services implemented over this infrastructure or connect to an existing node.
For now, only this chat demo is implemented.
One can choose to run its own node locally and accesses the chat app via their local node, the communication will be effectively end-to-end encrypted this way.
Hi, creator here.
This is a basic anonymous chat with video conferencing, implemented over a federated network of nodes that communicate over encrypted connections, exchanging events.
Basically, anyone can run their own node and access the services implemented over this infrastructure or connect to an existing node.
For now, only this chat demo is implemented.
One can choose to run its own node locally and accesses the chat app via their local node, the communication will be effectively end-to-end encrypted this way.
This makes me ask the question: Is it possible for a cellular automata to measure its state in one region without getting inconsistent results, since the simple act of measuring means changing its state?
It depends on what you want to achieve. Do you want to rapidly build up a community around the project or you just want to provide some value on the long term to whoever may be interested in what you offer.
If you want the former, then you'll probably have to spend considerably more time engaging with users, and, as a developer myself, I can say that that will probably be annoying.
If you want the latter, just let things flow naturally. Periods of development and user engagement will probably alternate, as you spend time working on a new feature and presenting it to the community and gathering feedback.
You may also want to spend a small amount of time daily/weekly to just check on active user feedback.
P.S. I run and NGO and manage/develop a platform consisting of a mobile app and a site that allows users to send feedback to public institutions on various types of problems and also integrate the public info so that it is available for anyone to check out. Personally I want this to evolve organically and I spend my time as described above ( the second scenario ).
The only thing I can say about this is that, once we'll have BMIs, the Government will want to tap into that as well, because you may have dangerous thoughts.
If you see the insanity of this, you should see the insanity of the Government tapping into private messages.