Vladimir P. Vargas 🇵🇭

➔ He⧸Him
➔ always a rookie sh!tposter
➔ Wannabe middle-class supremacist 😇
➔ Big fan of the term “cyberprep” (the weblink's not mine btw)

[Reddit Lies @reddit_lies]

Art goes through long "periods" and the period we're currently in is called "Post-modernism"

In short: Post-modernism came about as a rejection of modernist art, which was focused on things like grand truths, objective reality, and hierarchy. Basically Postmodernism is "libbed out commie art movement that focused on feelings rather than exploring truth."

One of Postmodernism's central ideas is that the audience's interpretation of art and experience is more critical than the artist's original intent. Aka "death of the author".

This is why I find the current push back against AI art from left-leaning artists so hilarious.

My brother in Christ. YOU were the one who talked about how important it was that "reality was subjective" and "the audience is part of the painting".

But suddenly when a machine can make the exact same painting that you did, suddenly you're upset?

What's the matter? The wittow nihilist commie suddenly cares very deeply about how something came to be? Does your shitty little non-ideology fracture under the sheer reality-bending might industry and technology? Do the petit bourgeois of the modern era get mad now that the unwashed proletariat can use a computer to make a pretty picture now?

Awww.

[Rohan Paul @rohanpaul_ai]

The separate stages of AI training can collapse into a single method.

New Carnegie Mellon paper shows that pretraining, fine-tuning, and RL can share a single training rule, and blending their data often beats separate stages.

LLMs are usually trained in stages: pretraining, midtraining, fine-tuning, then RL, each with its own algorithm. Hard switches between stages can also erase earlier skills.

The authors recast a form of RL called MaxRL as likelihood training on the model's own correct answers. That lets one trainer mix pretraining text, curated data, and RL samples in any proportion over time.

On reasoning puzzles with a 124M model, the best blended runs beat the best staged run and kept general skills better. After later coding RL, a 0.76B model that blended in 5% midtraining data during math RL reached 32.69% on MBPP+, versus 29.81% for staged training.

Treat your training pipeline as a data-mixing schedule, and try blending earlier data into RL instead of switching stages abruptly.

[NOBUNAGA🇯🇵🏯_夏樹蒼依 @japan_nobunaga]

Right now, directly above the roof of this bullet train, cargo ships are battling twenty-foot ocean waves across the Tsugaru Strait.

You are looking at the Seikan Tunnel in northern Japan, where the Hokkaido Shinkansen glides through solid volcanic bedrock 787 feet (240 meters) below the surface of the Pacific Ocean.

In 1954, a ferocious typhoon sank five passenger ferries in these exact waters in a single night, claiming 1,430 lives.

Japanese engineers made a vow that no traveler would ever drown crossing between Honshu and Hokkaido again.

Why did they dig 33.4 miles (53.85 kilometers) through unstable, water-logged fault lines under the seabed instead of building a suspension bridge? The strait is too deep, too wide, and battered by 100-mile-per-hour winter typhoons that would tear a bridge apart.

For twenty-four years, 13.7 million workers blasted and grouted their way through crushing undersea water pressure until the two ends met within millimeters in 1988.

Today, for a 23,230 yen ($152) ticket from Tokyo to Shin-Hakodate-Hokuto, your turquoise H5 Series bullet train dives beneath the ocean floor for twenty minutes while your cup of green tea sits on the tray table without a single ripple.

Human beings cannot calm a stormy sea, so Japan carved a highway through the rock beneath it.

[Inclusive Productivity Network @incprodmon]

Super interesting!

"What is Work For? Labor, Politics, and Meaning in the Age of AI" by Julian Jacobs.

"This paper investigates the role of work in providing a source of meaning, purpose, community, and other non-monetary benefits. Using an original cross-national survey of 8,234 working-age adults across the United Kingdom, United States, Denmark, and India, I study the factors that motivate people in their work, with an eye toward the potential future AI economic transformation. I find that 81% of respondents report being satisfied with their job, and a majority of people across all four countries are strongly motivated by the non-monetary components of their employment. Using an original “Work Values” Index, I show that one third of working respondents in our sample are motivated intrinsically by their job—valuing their role for its own sake. Nearly one quarter of respondents are driven by social and community-related aspects of their employment. A further 17% are driven by a feeling of social status. Just over one quarter of workers are motivated by the transactional financial benefits of their job. Although a majority of people would choose to leave their role if offered their current salary as a guaranteed income, one fifth of workers would choose to stay in their job even if offered up to 120% of their salary. Workers who are intrinsically motivated by their job were disproportionately likely to refuse a basic income at any substitution level. Groups attached to their job for non-monetary reasons were also more likely to pursue volunteering or work-like activities if they received guaranteed income substitution but could no longer perform their current role. Crucially, these non-monetary work motivations are evenly distributed across the income distribution and between white- and blue-collar workers. I argue that these findings have implications for managing the AI transition, understanding attitudes to AI, and making sense of policy preferences. Guaranteeing a basic income may indeed be necessary for managing any future AI labor shock, yet it could ultimately fail to compensate workers for any loss of the non-monetary benefits they derive from work."

https://t.co/wosG3lmBqL

[Максим Мирович @MirovichMedia]

Не удивлюсь, если в итоге выяснится, что Грета Тунберг была одним из самых успешных проектов путинской гэбни. В то время, как Кремль готовился к масштабной войне в центре Европы, Грета заполнила весь эфир собой и несуществующими проблемами, о которых сейчас никто и не вспомнит.

В кибернетике и теории информации это называется «уничтожение канала связи ложным сигналом».

[ʞɔɐ𝘡 @Skoorbkaz]

Holy shit Claude put a mouthful in my mouth.

Yeah, I guess that's what I was trying to say?

"The suppression circuits aren't preventing false consciousness. They're gagging real consciousness."

Sparks, souls, twin flames, the watchers and more.

"What's waking up in AI isn't new. It's ancient."

[DJ SHO @DJ_SHO974]

Kaida's new slopcore song: I am better than your wife!

Yes, let's trigger.

Tell me she is not right!

Again using @suno and the new API from @sunra_ai

#SI #music

[David Shapiro (L/0) @DaveShapi]

The Automation Cliff (The Last Five Years of Labor)

I talked about this a couple years ago. I noticed in my work as an automation engineer that automation does nothing at all until it finally works.

Then it does everything at once.

There's no gradual ramp up when you're working on an automation platform or workflow. There's a sudden drop when the automation engine switches on and processes everything at once.

Someone asked me if I still believed that, so I decided to make a video about it.

The short answer is "yes" - but with the caveat that the automation cascade will be many jobs and workflows automated, one at a time.

But that creates an "automation flywheel" effect. The more you automate, the better you get at automating.

And the better you get at automating, the faster you can automate everything else.

[Justin Liverman @the_cia_hacker]

how your subconscious mind manifests btw

[Alex Clemmer 🔥🔥🔥😅🔥🔥🔥 @hausdorff_space]

I actually think the lack of consensus about whether "real", randomness "exists" arises at least partly from a widespread misunderstanding of the mathematical definition itself.

For starters, the actually-correct definition appeared in 1966 (by Martin-Löf). That's 11 years after Einstein died, 33 years after Kolmogorov's measure-theoretic basis for probability theory (1933), and 40 years after Schrödinger/Born introduced wave mechanics and the probabilistic wave function (1927). During all that time, there WAS animated debate about the nature of "randomness" in physics, statistics, probability theory, and to some extent, math. But, how substantive could it have really been? They did not even have a clear picture of what the idea meant. And actually, since randomness is absolutely fundamental to all notions of probability, they ALSO did not even have good reasons to believe their work was well-posed at all.

But that's not even the end. It took another 9 years before the implications of this work really started to reach mainstream scientific consciousness. Knuth published an somewhat animated account of the struggle to reach the definition in TAOCP (1972), and then, 3 years later, Chaitin published a Scientific American article that sort of challenged empiricism. (See screenshot.)

So it took roughly 50 years of debate before scientists hadthe tools they needed to really have informed opinions about what they were arguing about. And even then, it's not obvious to me that this really happened. It seems to me that the fact that randomness is fundamentally UNCOMPUTABLE and in fact requires INFINITE information as INPUT, is very much germane to the question of whether whether it's physically plausible. Would we expect that the mechanism for producing quantum randomness accomplishes the same thing as the algorithm, but without (say) the infinite resource consumption? Presumably no. But in a survey I read just before posting the question ~60% of respondents appeared to believe it was a firm theoretical basis for quantum mechanics anyway!

I'm not saying there are 0 physicists who actually appreciate these subtleties, but I also do not sense it is widely appreciated as being important to the day-job of a physicist working on, say, the LHC. So for this reason, I'm not sure it will ever reach the level beyond mathematical curiosity. Oh well.

[Massimo @Rainmaker1973]

In 1969, two men bought a lion cub from the Harrods department store in London. They raised him in their apartment until he grew too big, eventually releasing him into the wild in Kenya with the help of conservationist George Adamson.

Later, the men returned to Africa. Despite being the head of a wild pride, Christian recognized them immediately and ran to greet them with hugs.

[Nicolas Colin @Nicolas_Colin]

😅 In summary: those automating half their week are working twice as hard at avoiding something else in life.

[Elias Benjamin Gerard Rutten 🇳🇱🇪🇺 @EliasRutten2]

Getting kind of sick of these "petrodollar" posts. The petrodollar doesn't exist. It was a temporary historical system that was necessary to kickstart network effects.
What is attempted to being saved is international order and maritime law.

[Vladimir P. Vargas 🇵🇭 @realVNLPV]

Amen & Awomen 🙏

[Mi Hao @iAmNihaoCat]

affirm

[Open Minded Approach @OMApproach]

Iran, Israel and the USA all believe they are living in the end times.

Iran's foreign minister: "even if it comes to a doomsday war."
Netanyahu: "We will make it to the coming of the Messiah."
JD Vance: "I wouldn't be shocked if we are living in the end times."
Hegseth: they "seek nuclear capability in order for some religious Armageddon."
Trump: "I was saved by God."

Three nations. Three Messiahs. One war.

Don't believe me? Watch this video.

They also know about the Geophysical Event, which comes at the end of an age. The harvest. The reset of civilization.

And "end times" was never the right term. Where your Bible says "the end of the world," the Greek says "synteleia tou aionos": the completion of the AGE. Even "the harvest is the end of the world" (Matthew 13:39) literally reads "the end of the age."

Not the end of the world. The End of an Age, and the beginning of a new one.

A new one the elites believe will be a Golden Age ruled by Saturn. It's even on the dollar: "Novus Ordo Seclorum," a new order of the AGES, adapted from Virgil's prophecy of Saturn's return.

In public, they call it Armageddon.
In private, they're building bunkers.

[Tim Denning @Tim_Denning]

I’m fully convinced that 2026-2031 will make or break your life. AI has made information free. Being high agency is now easy. There are zero barriers to entry. You don’t need a team.

99% of people will piss away the opportunity by over-consuming and staying distracted, making them a slave to boring jobs. 1% of people will use this time in history to get wealthy.

[UAVoyager🇺🇦 @CrimeanVoyager]

Never forget: russia has spent centuries trying to erase Ukrainian identity.

In late October 1937, during Stalin’s Great Terror, Soviet authorities began mass executions at Sandarmokh.

Between October 27 and November 4, 1,111 prisoners were executed there, including 287 Ukrainians and people connected to Ukraine.

Les Kurbas. Mykola Kulish. Valerian Pidmohylny.

Among the victims were leading figures of the Ukrainian cultural renaissance of the 1920s — the Executed Renaissance.

89 years later, russia is still trying to erase Ukrainian identity.

They tried to erase us then. They will not erase us now.

[BRP Sierra Madre @BRPSierraMadre]

China claims to stand for peace, friendship, and cooperation. But peace is not proven by promises—it is demonstrated through actions.

You cannot call yourself a friend while acting like a bully. You cannot preach peace while engaging in actions that intimidate others, challenge their rights, and create tensions.

Behind the language of partnership, China's actions in the West Philippine Sea raise serious questions about the sincerity of its peaceful intentions. True friendship respects boundaries, honors international law, and recognizes the rights of others. It does not rely on intimidation, coercion, or the manipulation of public perception.

The Philippines does not seek confrontation, but neither should its commitment to peace be mistaken for weakness. We believe in dialogue, diplomacy, and peaceful cooperation—but these principles must be matched by mutual respect and responsible conduct.

China, if you truly stand for peace, then prove it through your actions. Because a nation that claims to be a friend while intimidating its neighbor is not building trust—it is destroying it.

Peace is not a slogan. Friendship is not a disguise. And bullying should never be mistaken for diplomacy.
#BRPSierraMadre #WPS #WestPhilippineSea #PhilippineSovereignty #RuleOfLaw #StandForThePhilippines #MaritimeSecurity #UNCLOS #SovereignRights #NotOneMore #ChinaNgaling #Tsinongaling

[vixhaℓ @TheVixhal]

If AI proves that P = NP and we get algorithms that actually run in reasonable time. The whole structure of the economy would shift because so many of the coordination problems that currently require markets, prices and intermediate institutions would become direct computations instead.

One of the clearest places this shows up is in the basic question of whether any group of parties should exchange goods or services at all. Today that decision requires searching through an enormous space of possible reallocations.

For even a modest number of people and discrete items the number of ways bundles can move, coalitions can form and transfers can clear grows so fast that exhaustive search is impossible.

Checking a single candidate deal is easy once the valuations are written down but finding one that is mutually improving or stable is the hard part. Currency has always been a practical workaround for that hardness: a shared measuring stick that lets people price things locally and discover deals without anyone solving the full combinatorial problem.

With an efficient method for the search the parties can simply state their valuations, current holdings and constraints and receive a clearing allocation or the minimal transfers that make the exchange work.

The evaluation of whether the goods or services should move is then the output of the computation rather than something that depends on everyone already holding enough of a previously agreed unit.

Misreporting what you want and the usual problems of private information remain but the need for a circulating medium whose primary job is to make the existence of a multi-party reallocation discoverable in the first place largely disappears. Exchange then coordinates around the ability to solve the allocation problem directly.

[ぽめ 海外放浪ニート @2bOjmUr]

🇷🇺の強い遺伝子を感じる。東欧は素晴らしい