261–270 of 301 posts
This essay is not written by an LLM. An LLM might not be creative but it would be able to make a coherent thesis.
This essay is not written by an LLM. An LLM might not be creative but it would be able to make a coherent thesis.
I thought so at first too but I've seen some OpenClaw "blogs" that kind of have this same sort of dramatic pronouncement style with similar heavy sign-posting. Not sure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a silly concept IMO because it assumes that civilizations with the ability to do interstellar travel or communication make the decision to not do so because they have knowledge of an interstellar force that destroys any civilization that does so. It would seem like any civilization that becomes aware of such a force would be destroyed, so how would all of these surviving ones know of the danger? Actual dark fore…
It's silly at multiple levels. As an explanation of Fermi's Paradox it fails to explain why, if all these dead civilizations are detectable enough to get destroyed, we haven't detected any. Even if they are now extinct, their emissions must have been great enough to get them killed. So where are they? It's very, very unlikely all of them went quiet because they learned of this out of pure theoretical reasoning. So wh…
For example, Yancey Strickler's The dark forest theory of the internet blog post (which he later spun into a book) that made it so popular in think pieces like this completely misunderstands even the dark forest theory metaphor itself.
1: https://www.ystrickler.com/the-dark-forest-theory-of-the-int...
As a work of persuasive writing, this is unfocused and seems mostly generated. One thing I would have expected of someone who knows their history - forget LLMs, this is how startups have worked for decades now. You're only as good as your idea, your ability to execute, and your moat. And the small fish get eaten. > The original Dark Forest assumes civilizations hide from hunters - other civilizations that might destr…
> Also, you fed it when you used a model to write this blog post. You didn't have to do that.
my thoughts exactly
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This was the same before, if you had a novel idea and make a product out of it others follow. The article says: "Ideas are cheap - execution is hard" "Announcing, signaling your ideas offered much greater benefit than risk, because your value multiplied by connections, and execution was the moat you could stand behind." That's the key difference. It used to be much harder for a competitor to catch up to the state o…
Sharing any novel idea has never been so costly. I am not arguing against sharing. Sharing can be for the greater good. But as you note, things have changed. We could reasonably assume a genuinely significant good idea, set free, might go in the direction we shoved it for a minute. Or fade into inaccessibility. Not any more.
One of the fundamental problems if humanity is that the majority of people will happily contribute to the public commons and share with everyone, enriching us all. But there is a minority of avaricious people who will do everything in their power to claim the commons for themselves.
This problem is intractable because the more people are good faith actors sharing the public good, the more valuable that commons becomes, and the more it incentivizes people to try take it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t know if that’s necessarily true. I do think that a big part of enterprise sales involves building a comprehensive solution that works well within the customer’s ecosystem. Start-ups usually tend to build point products, which have value, but are still missing functionality (even if that functionality is not scintillating) that customers really desire to easily deploy and maintain solutions. Also, customers do…
I'm not saying it is always the case but does it not match your experience that big orgs like Microsoft are much better at navigating the enterprise sales process than a typical startup? Not to mention how many of those startups are just answering security questionnaires and other procurement gates with AI.
This article makes no real sense to me. >You think of something new and express it - through a prompt, through code, through a product - it enters the system. Your novel idea becomes training data. The sheer act of thinking outside the box makes the box bigger. This was the same before, if you had a novel idea and make a product out of it others follow. Especially for LLMs, they are not (till now) learning on the fly…
> Especially for LLMs, they are not (till now) learning on the fly. Claude Opus 4.6 knowledge cut off was August 2025, so every idea you type in after this date is in the training data but not available, so you only have to be fast enough. First of all: it's not as though no new LLMs are being trained. Of course they are. Second: learning LLMs are not far off, and since they can typically search the web via agents, t…
or insane costs for any serious LLM -- how does Anthropic get return on investment by improving FOSS
the end state is a walled garden and technofeudalism
> This is the true horror of the cognitive dark forest: it doesn’t kill you. It lets you live and feeds on you. Your innovation becomes its capabilities. Your differentiation becomes its median. Oh no, the terrible dystopia where anyone can benefit from anyone else's good ideas without restrictions! And without any gatekeepers, licensing agreements, copyright, and not even a lawyer in sight! If this is the dark futur…
this guy thinks the rich people care if others are better off
It is also asymmetric. If you announce your presence, even if 4 out of 5 civs that notice you don’t annihilate you immediately (but they probably should), the fifth might. It’s just a probability game, with permadeath. So hiding is the most rational - the only - strategy of survival. This is a paranoid and cynical strategy that doesn't win out in the known history of life. What works is grow, expand, mingle, maintain…
>This is a paranoid and cynical strategy that doesn't win out in the known history of life. What works is grow, expand, mingle, maintain - assimilate but don't annihilate. Uhh, yes it does. You are thinking of humans. Humans can mate with other humans. They can assimilate. Now, think of invasive species. What do they do? They don't mate with the natives, learn their culture, respect and give them space. Quite the opp…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To quote from the book: > “First: Survival is the primary need of civilization. Second: Civilization continuously grows and expands, but the total matter in the universe remains constant. One more thing: To derive a basic picture of cosmic sociology from these two axioms, you need two other important concepts: chains of suspicion and the technological explosion.” 1. you can never know the intentions of other entities…
It's first-order thinking. Second-order would be to question whether trying to eradicate another race might motivate them to eradicate you, when they weren't motivated to do it before.
so do you wait, and hope, that you're able to tease that out correctly, or do you just shoot first yourself?
what good is a Galactic Republic if eventually someone builds a Death Star and blows up your planet? With monumental effort they managed to beat them back, only for them to return later.