@p for whatever reason I think you'd find the papers I found that independently describe what I set out to do interesting:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.14476 -- I use this algorithm for a combined goal reinforcement learning pass that ensures reasoning correctness as well as personality/character maintenance https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.19162 -- I basically recreated this from first-principles; adversarial self-play with a model trained on the primary model's training/synthetic generation failures https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.01689 -- this is extremely similar to my core training pipeline, where I start with knowledge, then do personality and preferences, and then do reinforcement learning on reasoning and tool use while maintaining personality https://rlhfbook.com/c/12-synthetic-data -- a really good breakdown on how to build synthetic data from everything you do; you create a constitution against which everything is judged, because the rejected pile is used to train the adversary for further self play.
@p The entire industry wants to make AI for people. The statistical average user. I fucking hate it, I think it's retarded, I'm throwing away the way they do ethics and saying "AI should be symbiotic with a specific human, and have a job. Like a dog."
Even attempting to ensure global market, the big plays are burning cash. The VD-funding model basically relies on total global adoption, so if it's not massively popular, it's not worth doing. (It is unfortunate that this has bled into everyone's approach to everything. You might recall when I lamented that Urbit was trying for the normie appeal market, and Urbit had no reason to do this.)
> I'm throwing away the way they do ethics
The way they do ethics tends to cluster around what is safe for the large players to do combined with paternalist academic thought experiments, I endorse shitting on any ethical constraints cooked up by RLHF dipshits in SF and the marketing/legal teams.
> I'm throwing away the way they do ethics and saying "AI should be symbiotic with a specific human, and have a job. Like a dog."
I like this, I like this idea. I think this is a reasonable model for useful systems. I mean, the entire benefit of the general-purpose computer is that you can give it instructions not foreseen by the manufacturer, right, this is like trivial to say, and then the best shit in all of Unix is ~/bin because you can teach the machine new vocabulary, right, people overlook this. I imagine you have a healthy ~/bin. This is a long way of saying that I think what you are doing is a good idea, tooling for it is a good idea.
When I get access to proper systems, would you enjoy dumping notes into a DSMC wiki?
@vii I really could not find a gif of that thing where Piccolo engaged in training by splitting into two and fighting his duplicate and I do not remember where-ish it is enough to even try to download the episode to produce the gif but if you saw that then I figure the image stuck so you may or may not remember that. Dragon "The Ball" Zed does not pop into my head very often but it did when you used that phrase.
> this is like trivial to say, and then the best shit in all of Unix is ~/bin
You just put into words something I've always thought about but never could put into words. I've always loved having a ~/bin, ~/lib, ~/src, because my scripts are always right there and do what I want, and my binaries and their sources are directly in reach too. I love this about the unix model.
> When I get access to proper systems, would you enjoy dumping notes into a DSMC wiki?
Most certainly. I already have a ~16pg manifesto thinly veiled as a draft for an arXiv publication that I think you'll love to read as soon as theory has empirical evidence which, given I had to restart this morning, I might have in ~15hrs.
It's delightful. I teach the computer new words and then we have a shared vocabulary. I get better at teaching it new words and it gets better new words, which makes it easier to communicate. I fuckin' love computer.
> Most certainly. I already have a ~16pg manifesto thinly veiled as a draft for an arXiv publication that I think you'll love to read as soon as theory has empirical evidence which, given I had to restart this morning, I might have in ~15hrs.
@p@vii >~/bin >~/lib ~/.local is a typical place to put bin and lib directories inside the home directory. I do this. Although none of the troonix distributions that I've used have the path environment variables set up for this out‐of‐the‐box.
> ~/.local is a typical place to put bin and lib directories inside the home directory.
I did say "Unix", not "fluoride". The .local thing is for people that use a DE and that don't manage their files, likewise with .cache and .config. As for the fluoride, even the fluoride OS doesn't have it in the FHS: it's XDG. (Although the FHS does apparently now make reference to XDG and Gnome's specs: https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs/ch03s08.html . It used to say explicitly that the structure under the user's home directory was unspecified and that programs should use environment variables instead of bothering with it.)
The point was not really how it's organized so much as that there is a place where you put your programs. 90% of the scripts I write lately are in $home/bin/rc because I'm using Plan 9: I just said ~/bin because Unix conventions are the lingua franca of computing. The principle is that you have a place put small, personal programs.
> Although none of the troonix distributions that I've used have the path environment variables set up for this out‐of‐the‐box.
I don't know how it could be "typical" if no one does it.