litchralee

The person who coined the term "prompt injection" has the same gripe, because the original term genuinely did mean an attack using untrusted user input, a la SQL injection. But it's been conflated with jailbreak attacks in general, muddying the term.

Example of a bona fide prompt injection: white text in the background of a resume PDF, attacking a job application portal that uses LLMs to filter applicants. No privilege escalation is involved to give the candidate top marks on their resume screening.

Whereas a non-prompt injection jailbreak would be bypassing a safety filter, such as how Morse code might get past the filter and allow a user to request other people's cryptocurrency be transfered away. This is more akin to finding a poorly-secured, public facing API and then exploiting it.

I'd like to draw a comparison: a cozy wood fire versus central heating. In the right time and place (eg camping in the woods), a wood fire is both very practical and very useful. Meanwhile, most homes built in the past 70+ years in the USA have central heating (or are somewhere that doesn't need heating at all) and the benefits are quite obvious: automatic temperature regulation, supplied by a utility, and low or no local emissions. And yet, there will still be rural homes that are heated exclusively by a wood stove, located in the middle of the living room, whose iron construction stores and radiates heat well after the fire has gone out.

Do I bemoan individual homes that use a wood fire? No, not really. The reality is that a grand, overwhelming majority of people don't have wood fires anymore. Even when air quality is poor, prohibiting wood fires in a few rural homes isn't exactly what would clear up the air.

Now, it would be a vastly different story if city-dwellers all had wood fires. When every home in a neighborhood is building and burning a wood fire, the results are disastrous: horrific PM2.5 in the air, soot coating everything, substantially reduced energy efficiency, and mass logging just to keep the wood supply. A mole-hill quickly becomes a mountain of problems when it's at scale.

So to that end, I would very much like to see commercial-scale AI reigned in, as the external costs have already gotten out of hand. What they have built is more correctly called a wildfire, not a wood fire. But where does that leave small-scale AI/LLM users? They can weigh the cost/benefits for themselves, provided that they don't harm other people or resources in the process.

But that brings us back to a cozy wood fire versus central heating: at small scale, a wood fire struggles to heat an entire modern American home (ie 2500 sq ft; or 232 sq m). Yet central heating does it with ease. Who then will be interested in this endeavor? Probably only those with a love for the camping aesthetic, and other enthusiasts.

At this point, it has become more clear what the utility of small LLM models is, and they do pale in comparison to larger LLM models. If small LLMs are what sensibly survives into the future, then that's essentially a cap on their capabilities, given a want to avoid burning the planet to run anything larger. The only way out would be for substantial developments in the energy efficiency of small LLM models, but that's not where the interest is.

No one is seeking to build a more efficient wood fire.

There are subscription costs for homelabbing?

I don't disagree. But seeing as OP specifically asked for a word, I'm inclined to offer the most specific, most descriptive word I can muster that is germane to what they've described.

IMO, precision of language is paramount when it comes to addressing other people's problematic behavior, because it closes the door on excuses like "it's just a simple misunderstanding" or "that's just their opinion".

The most poignant example I've heard of are from parents that make absolutely certain that their children learn the proper names for their body parts. As in, not "hoo-hah" or "privates" but the actual, unambiguous clinical names. This is a marked improvement than the TV trope of "where on the doll did the bad man touch you".

Deflection: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/deflection

The act of attacking or blaming another person rather than accepting criticism or blame for your own actions: Deflection is a psychological defense mechanism.

financial philosophy

Surely this would just be economics, no? Especially as your question pertains to the money supply, which is squarely in the domain of macroeconomics.

how much money is there in total, in the world?

I can only summarize what my economics course at uni covered, but you'd have to start with defining what should be counted as money. Even if we looked at an isolated island nation, what is and isn't money is not readily apparent. If I write out a check/cheque drawn against my bank account, is that money? Can my cheque be circulated as if it were currency? How about a banknote against the gold reserves of a national bank or treasury? What if that banknote isn't directly redeemable for gold or anything, but is a floating currency? What if it's neither redeemable nor is managed as if a currency, and yet it is readily accepted by Canadians and has actual buying power at a national retail chain.

Then we get to second-order candidates that could be money (or not): goods and services, land and houses, ongoing businesses, these all have some value and are tradable. Are these money? Are they at least a store of value? If a company is incorporated and is imbued with some starting investment, and then grows that value through business operations, does that create money?

To deal with this messy reality, economists have multiple definitions for money supply, found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply. If two people use differing definitions, then of course they'll conclude different values for the world's total money supply.

Then the bank owes $1.02B actually, while only having $1B on the account. So the total amount isn't zero, it's negative

Not correct, because: 1) this fails to account for the interest the bank can generate through re-lending the money, and 2) interest is not a front loaded charge but is an expense over time.

For #1, it would be some profligate mismanagement of money for a bank to just obtain a loan "for the lolz" and there would be some sort of plan to actually make it do work. In that sense, capital should be viewed as if it were a powderkeg: very capable if applied carefully, very dangerous if mishandled. As for whether or not a bank's future revenue can be immediately reflected on their books -- since the revenue is only theoretical yet the central bank loan is already a certainty -- that's a question for accountants.

For #2, the mistake is that interest -- although continually accruing, or by other terms -- is somehow entirely due at the very beginning, which is not how most loans are structured. At any given point in time, yes, the bank could have negative net value, but they could also have positive net value, depending on their cash inflows. And even with negative cash flow, accounts receivable could still boost their net value because future value is still value.

My recommendation would be to review some basics in economics or accountability, as these sorts of questions have been hashed out over the course of hundreds of years. And even when economic theories don't exactly describe this reality, they are still useful as models, which is still more rigorous an approach than divination.

In a nutshell: https://github.com/becarpenter/misc/blob/main/why6why.md

An app...lique?

Sewing jokes aside, this would be a nightmare, where something as basic as a bandage requires an app to unlock the dispenser. Dead phone? I guess only death awaits...

Following along, in the hopes a material scientist will give a detailed description of what makes a good lube for human activities.

Some of the most impactful demonstrations of science are hands-on activities. After all, any sufficiently advanced science starts to look like magic, and a major objective of science museums is to disabuse people of that notion. That these demos seem to be child-oriented is simply a result of not assuming any background knowledge of the topic. But even adults might not know how a tumbler lock works, or that electricity follows all paths in inverse proportion to resistance. If something is rooted in natural phenomena, age is not a prerequisite to understanding.

As an adult, I personally enjoy science museums precisely because they're the polar opposite of technical papers and textbooks: an accessible and chill mood to learn about stuff I've seen but never paid much attention to. I'm not so vain to think that I can't learn something from a museum visit. In some sense, adults going to science museum is akin to edutainment, the genre on YouTube. Some museums even specifically have after-hours events so that adults can roam without children in the way.

Some might also call it "adult learning" or "continuing education", but whatever it is, it's enriching for individuals and families alike.

There might exist one, but it probably doesn't haven't much volume or isn't well federated because few other instance want to interact with spammy, problematic, high-complaint instances.

What you're describing might be a Level Three in the moderation speedrun: https://www.techdirt.com/2022/11/02/hey-elon-let-me-help-you-speed-run-the-content-moderation-learning-curve/

The brilliance of the McMaster-Carr website is best appreciated when viewed alongside the print version of the McMaster-Carr catalog. As a child, I literally grew up on that bright yellow book, since my parents used it as my booster seat for the kitchen table. It is a thick tome, second only to the thinner Grainger catalog, which became the next booster seat after a few years.