Mastodon Feed: Posts

Boosted by soatok@furry.engineer ("Soatok Dreamseeker"):
Intaglio_Dragon@furry.engineer ("Intaglio Whitegraven") wrote:

@MeiLin @soatok I'm reminded of that "Mom, can you give me money" meme:

• Boss, can you give me money to go to Berlin?
• To attend the IT conference?
• Yes, to attend the IT conference.
• Actually attends Eurofurence like a boss 😎

Boosted by soatok@furry.engineer ("Soatok Dreamseeker"):
Gyroplast@furry.engineer wrote:

@soatok
To paraphrase Loriot:

A life without being a pug is possible, but pointless.

You likely have succumbed to furry mindrot. You might experience other symptoms:

• excessive tolerance and respect towards all creatures
• sudden urges to hug, or be hugged
• phantom tail
• being a good boy
• awoos

Do not consult anyone or seek medical help. The condition is irreversible, but spreads only through a mildly contagious pathOwOgen through prolonged and close exposure to infected groups.

Boosted by glyph ("Glyph"):
aphyr@woof.group ("École des Bro-Arts") wrote:

My new drag king persona is an orchestral percussionist with an anxiety disorder: Tim Panic.

Boosted by glyph ("Glyph"):
rmondello@hachyderm.io ("Ricky Mondello") wrote:

Here’s the blog post I promised y’all on how I recommend switching password managers in 2026! It covers:
- why your iPhone or iPad, and not your Mac, might be the place to start your switch
- when to make the switch and how to treat your “old” app going forward
- tips and tricks for switching to Apple Passwords, if that’s where you’re going (can be skipped!)
- the recent controversy in password management and some thoughts on values

https://rmondello.com/2026/09/07/switching-password-managers-2026/

neatnik@social.lol ("Neatnik :prami:") wrote:

For anyone seeking an unbiased account of what this is about, I highly recommend this piece: https://coyotetracks.org/blog/pressure-to-stay-genteel/

To this day, Manton still hasn't denounced the transphobic statement made by his employee, or the barrage of harassing emails that his employee sent to an omg.lol member who was offended by that statement. He clearly knew that it was a bad look, though, since he removed the employee's name from the Micro.blog website. He also still has not made a clear and unequivocal statement of support (or even acceptance) of queer people. The closest he's ever come was "Micro.blog is a good place for LGBTQ+ people."

He probably thinks this post is a "personal attack", because any time a privileged white man's integrity is questioned, they feel attacked. But this post is just me sharing facts. They may be inconvenient for Manton, but they're 100% true.

Boosted by glyph ("Glyph"):
fionafibration@mathstodon.xyz ("barbie's dream house of leaves") wrote:

RE: https://mathstodon.xyz/@tao/117230983938174038

I think it's extremely damning that even Tao, who is very involved with OpenAI, recognises this for what it is: a false promise, a contribution to mathematics which leads to dead-ends in our theories and understanding, a company using unsolved conjectures as a resource to fuel their stock prices while providing little to no value back to the field of mathematics.

I hope that in the next couple years we as mathematicians seriously reconsider our current system where theorems proven/disproven are the primary social currency of mathematics, because these LLMs are hijacking these incentives in ways that are very damaging to us.

As an early-career researcher it's hard to not want to jump ship right now. I started doing mathematics very young and I have never loved something like I love maths, but all of the recent news makes me wonder whether it's actually a good idea to continue doing math.

Almost every single PhD student I have talked to is doubting whether they have a future with the current situation, and I hope we can figure things out before the current generation of mathematicians PhDs arrive into a world of maths that has been mined out and left barren by AI companies pumping more speculative value into their bubble.

(1/3)

glyph ("Glyph") wrote:

sometimes you find a person with a blog who is _absolutely_ just living their best life and working on their special interest and it is a beautiful thing https://www.benjoffe.com/fast-date

Boosted by glyph ("Glyph"):
Ussjoin@cloudisland.nz ("Brendan Francis O'Connor") wrote:

@glyph Do you know anyplace to post jobs specifically of the form “we are *not* demanding you use LLMs?” My company is trying to find a new Infra lead and all the candidates are… not actually able to do the work, many because they appear to be mostly ChatGPT by volume. It just occurred to me you might have a suggestion.

neatnik@social.lol ("Neatnik :prami:") wrote:

Earlier today, the chief protocol guy at Bluesky wrote something nice about omg.lol. https://bsky.app/profile/bnewbold.net/post/3muzgzcgzyc2l

Then Manton Reece showed up to complain about "the owner's long-running personal attacks on me." I guess he couldn't pass up the opportunity to take a swing.

I spun up a Bluesky account to respond, and swapped a few replies with Manton. He responded to everything I said with "that didn't happen" or "that's a total distortion of the truth".

You can't have a productive conversation with someone who refuses to acknowledge real harm. And you definitely can't have a productive conversation with someone who chooses gaslighting over earnest discussion.

It was a waste of time and energy. I deleted my replies and my Bluesky account. If Manton ever wants to have a real conversation about this, I would welcome that. If he just wants to endlessly whine about my past requests to see him denounce bigotry in all of its forms (especially bigotry by another member of the Micro.blog team), which is what he's labeling "personal attacks", then that's his choice. If he wants to continue to play the victim instead of demonstrate accountability, that's his prerogative.

Boosted by cstanhope@social.coop ("Your weary 'net denizen"):
wizard@xyzzy.link ("[XYZ] wlo") wrote:

violating the wtfpl by not doing whatever the fuck i want

Boosted by pixxl:
VileLasagna@mastodon.gamedev.place ("Vile Lasagna") wrote:

@tante it screams against the insecurity of sloplickers that a lot of them take great offence at others' refusal to engage. They know about a myriad of ways in which these things are, uuuummm, extremely bad, actually. An important function of the narrative of inevitability is that it removes agency from themselves: it's an overwhelming force that happens to them, it's silly to even imagine not engaging.

But when you do, the illusion breaks and they take that as a personal, moral attack

Boosted by pixxl:
tante@tldr.nettime.org wrote:

RE: https://tldr.nettime.org/@tante/117235476116975345

The most surprising realization I had in the last years was how important it is to be public about your refusal to participate in harmful acts therefore giving others "permission" to do so as well. It really matters.

jscalzi@threads.net ("John Scalzi") wrote:

Happy birthday to objectively one of our best, and subjectively one of my favorite, songwriters: @realaimeemann!

ireneista@irenes.space ("Irenes (many)") wrote:

dunno. go read our other thread. it's better :)

ireneista@irenes.space ("Irenes (many)") wrote:

sigh are we being too harsh? the amount of protection it gives isn't zero, and it's true that evil people and organizations are trying it. we still think the style of thinking is worth interrogating though.

jonny@neuromatch.social ("jonny (nonvenomous)") wrote:

When companies that throw around billions of dollars like its nothing claim they have done something no scientist or mathematician ever could, remember that NIH's total annual budget is $48b, NSF's is $8.75b ..... And OpenAI had $34b of costs and expenses in 2025, including a $19b R&D budget.

NIH and NSF pay for most basic research in the US across all disciplines. OpenAI makes consumer language models and language model accessories. If any single problem had a $19b R&D budget like LLMs do, no fucking shit progress would go up like a hockeystick

Boosted by neatnik@social.lol ("Neatnik :prami:"):
jasonm@social.lol ("Jason :neobread_this_is_fine:") wrote:

white guys with bad takes

ireneista@irenes.space ("Irenes (many)") wrote:

bull fucking shit.

ireneista@irenes.space ("Irenes (many)") wrote:

it doesn't matter how absurd the claim is

it doesn't matter that everything you care about would already be gone before the claim even becomes relevant

somebody else might do it first, if we don't, so we have no choice! it's not our fault, it's game theory!

ireneista@irenes.space ("Irenes (many)") wrote:

"we cannot allow there to be a mine shaft gap!"

we kind of think Failsafe is a better movie than Dr. Strangelove, but this particular line just does a very good job of illustrating a type of thinking that's endemic to statists and anyone selling the cop/military version of "security"

in particular, it's the same thinking behind claims that it's necessary to use LLMs to find security issues

Boosted by glyph ("Glyph"):
glyph ("Glyph") wrote:

Is using a local LLM any worse than playing a video game? No clickbait here, the answer is "yes, much worse", but perhaps you will be interested in an explanation of why: https://blog.glyph.im/2026/09/but-what-about-video-games.html

soatok@furry.engineer ("Soatok Dreamseeker") wrote:

Today I was reminded that it's possible to, when imagining an avatar for oneself in a fictional setting, not assume a creature.

Maybe I've been a furry for so long that it's normal?

Looks friend-shaped. Why not friend?

jonny@neuromatch.social ("jonny (nonvenomous)") wrote:

OpenAI claims that they used 300 billion output tokens from a swarm of ~10,000 concurrent instances of an internal model that is almost certainly larger and more expensive to run than GPT-6. That's the total token output, including exploring related problems, which, along with spying on other researchers work via codex, "led them to the solution," so that is the minimal accounting of what led to the solution.

All of OpenAI's API costs are presumed to be subsidized, lower than the actual cost of running the models. If one were to pay the API costs for 300 billion tokens for GPT-6, at $75 per million output tokens with long context, that would be 22.5 million dollars of tokens (the minimum, assuming 100% cached output with short context is still 3.75 million, but that's an unrealistic minimum). OpenAI apparently also had a full team of people working on this, so 22.5 million doesn't include their salaries, etc.

Tristan Buckmaster only has one grant listed from NSF, a CAREER grant for $450k from 2022 through 2028, averaging $70k per year the last three years.

If i search the NSF grants database for any award from the Division of Mathematical Sciences with "navier-stokes" in the abstract (surely, imprecise, and most likely a sizeable overcount because this is "all work that mentions the equation" not "work spent specifically on the millenium prize proof"), then i get $135m worth of awards since 1978, including large training grants for centers, etc. so $22.5m would be ~16% (or, roughly, 1/6th) of all funding that NSF has allocated to research that mentions the problem in their grants for almost 50 years.

If i then use NSF's API to find all the publications that have come from these grants, I find 4,928 papers. I can match 4264 to entries in OpenAlex (85%), yielding 142,606 citations (1/6 of which is 710, and 23,767, respectively).

So, assuming we believe OpenAI's accounting, the headline is basically "OpenAI researchers seem to have stolen the work of mathematicians that were using Codex, and then spent 1/6 of all the funding NSF has given with abstracts mentioning navier-stokes over the past 50 years, which amounts to an entire subdiscipline of work, feeding, housing, and training generations of mathematicians, in order to generate a proof two of the statements in a millenium prize problem"

I dont know how NSF funds math, but i sort of doubt they give grants for "try to solve millenium problems full stop." idk, maybe an alternative strategy would be to just "fund basic research," because even in this specific domain of an axiomatic universe with an unambiguously evaluable solution to a problem where brute force is possible, "AI" doesn't seem like it's really that much of a bargain, and "paying people to be experts at things" has lots of known good side effects like "someone actually understands the solution"

Boosted by glyph ("Glyph"):
xgranade@wandering.shop ("Cassandra has had an adventure") wrote:

Reader, I literally went back to bed. Then I woke up, cuddled the doggo, drank some coffee, and watched the Zelda direct. GrapheneOS still is slopware, the CTO of Bluesky (Old Twitter, now for TERFs and boosters!) is still saying inane shit about stats, there's still slop in the Linux kernel and a distro that's upstream from like two thirds of other distros, there's still an international movement to exterminate people like me, and more.

But it did, dear Reader, help quite a bit.

Boosted by ireneista@irenes.space ("Irenes (many)"):
zanzi@mathstodon.xyz ("Zanzi @ Monoidal Cafe") wrote:

look, all i'm saying is that mathematics is the art of turning coffee into theorems, and no machine will ever drink coffee

jwz wrote:

Every time someone says "frontier model", Frontier Psychiatrist starts playing in my head. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLrnkK2YEcE

Boosted by neatnik@social.lol ("Neatnik :prami:"):
pzumk@social.lol ("ｐｔｒｃｋ") wrote:

RE: https://social.lol/@neatnik/117227874076649666

☕️ oof, marco arment takes a break from mastodon following the controversy about his latest blog post (?) → https://mastodon.social/@marcoarment/117236086800477879

Boosted by cstanhope@social.coop ("Your weary 'net denizen"):
stsp@bsd.network ("Stefan Sperling") wrote:

There are forks of the #GameOfTrees version control system popping up merely because of worries that the project might eventually succumb to accepting LLM-generated contributions, then ending up on other people's lists of #noAI LLM-free alternatives.

Fork the code as much as you want, but please don't let your potential users hanging when important issues get fixed upstream, and keep in mind that I don't work with LLMs, have never even once asked an LLM for anything, and I don't intend to start. I don't believe the other developers involved are all as pristine as myself, but I've met most of them in person, do trust them, and have never seen anyone commit code which looked like they didn't write it.

As a community we are losing trust in established projects within the FOSS ecosystem very fast right now. I understand and share many of the concerns about LLMs, but the trend to quickly fork projects out of spite and fear without communication is also worrying. If you maintain a list of recommendations, please ask upstream projects which do not already have an obvious pro-LLM stance before recommending forks with little to no track record, especially when the software in question might handle sensitive data.

I have added the following to the project's README file. Not sure if this counts as a policy. To me it feels more like I'm writing down what should be common sense.

"""
Game of Trees is entirely handwritten and contributions generated by LLMs
will not be accepted. The main author (Stefan Sperling) has successfully
been avoiding LLMs and would prefer to keep it that way, even if/when legal
uncertainties around the copyright status of LLM-generated output settle.

Should you feel a need to ask an LLM questions in order to help you understand
something, try asking us first. If you are truly trying to wrap your head
around something then you will learn from us, and we will learn from you.
We may have some expertise you are lacking, but because we cannot ignore what
we already know, we can be blind to problems you are seeing. Our code and
documentation can likely be improved as a result of communication, even before
you send a first patch.
"""

jsonstein@masto.deoan.org ("Jeff Sonstein") wrote:

“The justice’s order deferred to Missouri’s Supreme Court, which last week blocked the use of the new map even though it had been used in last month’s primary election.”

JFC ppl

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/08/us/politics/supreme-court-missouri-congressional-map.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

Boosted by jwz:
zzt@mas.to ("[object Object]") wrote:

serious journalists: is AI alive? we asked this panel of experts who work for the companies that sell AI

also serious journalists: some historians claim the alleged Roman salute displayed by musk was definitely a nazi salute. however,

also also serious journalists: we revealed banksy’s identity because of a non-credible conspiracy theory that he was being paid by the government, extremely sour grapes about the idea that he might have occasionally made money off his work, and a vague high school newspaper gesture towards the public’s “right to know” about a pseudonymous counter-cultural artist during a time when counter-cultural artists are being jailed. pulitzer please