s/could\ be/are/

They’re lobotomising tools. Vibe coding is just shoving one end of an ice pick up your nose, setting the other on a keyboard, and replacing its handle with a mains powered personal massager.

‘AI’ fluffers sure do love the taste of grift flavoured tokens.

I’d ask what you were thinking, but it’s clear that played no material role in this extrusion. Extrapolating the assertion I constrained to a specific topic to the entirety of ‘tech’ is a bellowing straw man.

Further, the exclusively US centric examples of inappropriate stewards reveals the vantage to be squarely rooted inside that noxious bubble. The invocation of treason further betrays an affinity for national subservience.

To refine my original point, my observation of the application of LLMs is that the only entities who find them impressive are those who expressly lack proven expertise in the area it’s being applied. The correlation appears to be nearly linearly, inversely proportional.

LLMs could eventually prove innately useful, but there’s no indication they’re close to that, let alone traversing a relevant vector.

Personally, any world populated with entities who are impressed by LLMs is a world not worth living in.

There could be many use cases, and some of them may even be legitimate, but I’m yet to observe any which have broad applicability, and they should only ever be wielded by a responsible, expert adult.

It’s telling that you assumed the description applied exclusively to LLMs.

No one who persists in labelling LLMs as ‘AI’ should be treated as an authority on the subject, and I’d argue it’s one of the greatest indicators of how little they comprehend the situation.

I’ll never understand how an explosively imprecise, statistically luke-warm, grey goo extrusion sphincter could ever be mistaken for intelligence.

AI doesn’t exist, it’s a vacuous marketing term.

LLMs have vanishingly narrow legitimate, defensible use cases, but their output is intrinsically inaccurate, and should never be used without supervision from relevant domain experts.

LLMs can’t ’go rogue’, as that would require innate coherence and intent.

They’re explosively imprecise, statistically luke-warm grey goo extrusion sphincters of historical sewage.

Anyone who deploys one without supervision deserves everything it excretes, and anyone impressed by it enough that it resembles intelligence is betraying their limited natural capacity.

One of my favourite features of v6 is it explicitly permits, and caters for, multiple addresses on an interface. This means you could theoretically have a unique address per application, within multiple prefixes if they’re available.

Couldn’t you do that with v4? Or maybe that was only with bridge interfaces. hmm

Multiple v4 addresses are possible, like secondary/virtual configurations, but it’s not a concept built into the formal specifications, and usually constrained to advanced networking equipment.

With v6, multiple addresses, across multiple prefixes, are first class features in even the dumbest nodes. I honestly consider it one of the most valuable features of v6.

I personally have all my internal services accessible only on addresses under ULA prefixes, which intrinsically prevents them from being accessed outside of my network, no firewall required. Using WireGuard permits remote access when needed.

This is… interesting. At first I thought it was just like the v4 loopback range, but like you mentioned it opens up the possibility of routing between two on-machine networks. I’m gonna have to digest that idea for a while.

ULA prefixes are basically equivalent to RFC1918 v4 private ranges. I have a unique ULA prefix wherever I have a RFC1918 range. Again, the key feature is they exist alongside GUA (public) prefixes, not instead of them. The key is the routing stack explicitly constrains reachability to within your administrative domain.

What’s a useful way to manage clients identities? Like before, static MAC would allow the assignment of a static IP, then that device could be handled by the firewall using that IP. But with these random addresses is there any way to use targeted firewalling/monitoring for specific devices?

The way you’re supposed to identify hosts for v6 configuration is with a DUID instead of a MAC. That said, I don’t consider it necessary to keep track of individual hosts except for servers or other requirements for static addresses.

A better way of managing it is to group common hosts within a specific /64, and set policy specific to that. The hosts can then cycle through IADs as normal. It’s why it’s so important for ISPs to provide a minimum of /60 or /56 via PD as a default.

The only exception is if you need historical tracking of host activity, but any environment in that position is already heavily infected with surveillance urchins.

The full 128 bits of source and destination addresses are passed end-to-end, my comment is specifically focused on routing.

As far as privacy is concerned, v6 allows a much broader scope for protection than v4 and NAT, as the IA portion (second 64 bits) can be changed at will by that endpoint. EUI-64 is still common with basic v6 stacks, but SLAAC will rotate every ~24 hours.

EDIT: I’d conflated the original SLAAC specification with the SLAAC privacy extensions RFC 4941, which at almost 2 decades old itself could be argued to be the canonical reference.

One of my favourite features of v6 is it explicitly permits, and caters for, multiple addresses on an interface. This means you could theoretically have a unique address per application, within multiple prefixes if they’re available.

I personally have all my internal services accessible only on addresses under ULA prefixes, which intrinsically prevents them from being accessed outside of my network, no firewall required. Using WireGuard permits remote access when needed.

The only legitimate v6 prefix smaller than /64 is /127, to be used for point to point links, similar to /31’s in v4, but these aren’t processed for routing outside of the boxes the link is configured on.

The concepts of addressing for v4 and v6 don’t map 1:1.

From the perspective of the internet, and any properly configured routing infrastructure, they should only ever be interested in the first 64 bits when routing, the second 64 should be exclusively the domain of the last segment. It’s like inserting an additional type of addressing between the routing portion and the protocol port.

You kind of have this with v4, but it’s variable, particularly since CIDR shot the v4 address classes in the head, so the equipment had to be able to process the entire address with every routing lookup and other functions.

It looks like the peaks are about to break 50% of their traffic being native v6 for the first time.

Financial obesity is an existential threat to any society that tolerates it, and needs to cease being celebrated, rewarded, and positioned as an aspirational goal.

Corporations are the only ‘persons’ which should be subjected to capital punishment, but billionaires should be euthanised through taxation.

This is just capitalism. It values, and thus incentivises, sociopathic behaviour.

The more one exhibits the traits of the financial triad, CPA[0], the greater the reward, recognition, and promotion they can expect to receive.

[0]: Cunt, Prick, Arsehole

My comments stem from broader work I’ve been ruminating on, which doesn’t yet exist in a form I can readily share here. I’m not advocating for the abolition of IP alone, there needs to be an appropriate and battle hardened replacement to fill the void. This is part of my attempt to help extract it from my head.

The entire notion of ‘Intellectual Property’ is a cancer on society.

Intellectual property is a term that wraps a whole bunch of things (copyright, trademarks, patents). Are you fully aware of the impact how abolishing all IP would negative affect society?

I’m well aware of the scope my comments cover, and I stand by them.

Copyright prevents the KKK from producing and selling Pokemon cartoons with Pikachu supporting stupid shit like white supremecy propaganda. Are you sure you want that protection gone?

I’m fascinated as to the justification in relying on copyright to prevent hate speech, or enforce other morality constraints. This example is just another case of using the wrong tool for the job.

Information and ideas intrinsically accrue value the more they’re known and used, and the incentives provided around their collation and attribution should embody that, not punish them with imaginary locks that provide ownership.

Let’s just take the patents portion of IP for a moment. The first part of what you’re asking for here is exactly what patents do. To have something patented, the patent holder has to fully document the machine/process/method to create the patented item. This is that mechnism that enables the “more known and used”. Society gains this knowledge because the owner fully shares it.

I agree this is a stated claim of patent systems, and it’s a concept that should stand. My argument is that the incentives are problematic. By conjuring gaol cells and granting exclusive ownership over an idea, it rewards restrictive, exclusionary and extractive behaviours.

My counter proposal is to create a replacement system which intrinsically rewards open, sharing, and collaborative actions.

A design patent can last for only 14 or 15 years (depending on filing date). The longest type of patent (Utility) lasts only 20 years. After as few as 14 years everyone can use this knowledge without any fees/restrictions/payments.

A key distinction between the current and my proposed systems is reframing the designation of ‘ownership’ as ‘attribution’. A reason for this is ownership invokes a right to restriction, whereas attribution serves as the provision of recognition.

The restrictions facilitated by patents are entirely imaginary, and cause unnecessary harm the entire span of their enforcement.

This is a be-careful-what-you-wish for situation with what you’re asking for here. There are companies choosing NOT to file patents anymore and simply keep their methods secret. Since they methods aren’t patented they are under no obligation to ever share them publicly. There is a very real chance that many of these technologies/methods may be unknown to society at large for long after the term of normal patent protection would have expired and society would have been able to use the knowledge.

How is an example of the patent system being insufficient to incentivise someone to engage with it a defence of the patent system?

Further, an element of my proposal is pseudonymous and anonymous submission. If an idea exists, but has not been published, and doing so could be dangerous if traced back to the author, it provides a mechanism for it to be made available to and for society.

EDIT: I was trying to think of a good example of a company that agrees with your stance about not patenting and I remembered one. Elon Musk is choosing not to patent SpaceX rocket engines because it would force him to document how they work. Instead they are just keeping the designs secret. So your desire to not have patents used are advocating for what Elon Musk does.

Not all sociopaths are billionaires, but all billionaires are sociopaths, and should be euthanised through taxation. Anonymous submission could be a pathway for a privileged altruistic entity to make the concept more broadly available, which would create an incentive for a ‘Musk’ to engage with the system earlier and more frequently.

One of the greatest tricks Capitalists ever pulled was convincing creative individuals that copyright exists to serve their interests.

My comments stem from broader work I’ve been ruminating on.

The current IP regime (copyright, patents, trademark, etc.) incentivise locking ideas up and away as tightly as possible, they aren’t fit for purpose, and should be largely done away with, but the void that would leave needs a replacement that is proven and battle hardened.

My current proposition is a mechanism that rewards the spread of knowledge, and its comprehension, as broad and deep as practicable.

Creating, discovering, disseminating, and explaining ideas should be rewarded, but not by housing them in conjured gaol cells.

The notion that ideas need protection from competition is foundationally caustic. The current regime incentivises locking them behind exclusionary and extractive mechanics as if they’re finite, when they’re intrinsically the opposite.

I can see how ‘IP’ can appear appealing, if not justifiable, but I’d argue this is only because alternatives have been too effectively suppressed by the sociopaths benefiting from the status quo.

The entire notion of ‘Intellectual Property’ is a cancer on society.

Information and ideas intrinsically accrue value the more they’re known and used, and the incentives provided around their collation and attribution should embody that, not punish them with imaginary locks that provide ownership.

Any world where a wholly imaginary concept is treated as a serious replacement for a critical function requiring specialised training is a world that doesn’t want you to exist within it.

This lobotomisation of society is manifest nihilism.

Authoritarianism is an admission of abject weakness.

White supremacists are the weakest and most brittle snowflakes.

A healthy and broadly educated population, which feels safe and secure, is incompatible with, and toxic to, conservative and authoritarian ideologies.

They need you to be sick, stupid, and scared.

It’s telling that LLM thumpers think it’s appropriate to treat skeptics of their slop like a rape victim.