Data

i am a fucking fool

why do i wear a $100 t-shirt?

how?

i havent been grandiose enough

@boneGPT listen to this bitch

Kimi just called my LLC petit bourgeois

@specialkdelslay @DispairSoftware @parisxcx woman

@specialkdelslay @DispairSoftware @parisxcx sir and mam they identify as women

justin bieber, madonna and shakira

@specialkdelslay he followed me

@DataDeLaurier Did he block u or is he a misogynist

Got blocked over this 😌 I stand behind it tho

men can basically smell when women are ovulating

@deanwball shut up

Some observations on Kimi: 1. It's a very good model! I don't think its performance can be explained away by distillation or anything like that. In agentic coding sessions, it seems pretty much on par with the best public models of Q1 2026. In my fairly limited use, it also seemed very token hungry. It's not obvious to me that this model is actually that cheap to run. 2. I am personally surprised the Chinese state continues to allow the open sourcing of models this good, given potential risks. To be clear, I *myself* might be fine with models presenting this level of marginal risk being open weight, but I am surprised that China is fine with it. I suspect the reason they are is 75% explained by strategic blindness/lack of AGI-pilledness (the CCP is very Yann Lecun-y in its views of AI). The other 25% or so is their lack of compute for customer inference (making China's open-weight strategy an unintended byproduct of US export controls) and the normal Chinese strategy of aggressive exports. For the companies, as opposed to the government, the decision to open source is partially ideological and partially because they are behind, and they know that very few people would pay for sub-frontier models from China. 3. Open-weight models are inherently decelerationist, and I'm continually surprised to see the so-called "accelerationists" so excited about open-weight models. I suspect the reason they are is that they know open-weight models are effectively ungovernable, and they simply like the overall cloak of ungovernability open-weight models create over the whole of AI. It's not a bad strategy; it reminds me of James Scott's recounting of the hill people in "the art of not being governed." Still, in the end, open-weight models deter further AI capex. 4. One probable outcome of an open-weight-model-dominant world is full AI communism, which is precisely what China proposes: rather than a market product, AI is a "public good" which will ultimately be provided by the state as a kind of "digital public infrastructure." This future strikes me as a dystopian hellscape, but I've never met an open-weight models advocate who doesn't ultimately concede this is where things end. You'd be surprised how many 'accelerationists' lobbied me, while I was in government, to support an eleven or twelve-figure federally funded data center so that startups could train models at a subsidy and then give them away for free. There was no other way for AI to progress, they said. Perhaps this is the logical end state of things. Nonetheless, I find myself surprised to see supposed accelerationists excited about such an outcome. I think many of them just don't know what they're doing. Many accelerationists do not view the creation and serving of frontier models as a legitimate business. 5. I would guess that the Trump Administration will at some point realize that their best strategy here would be to create large amounts of regulatory risk around the use of open-weight Chinese models. You don't need to "ban open source" (one of the dumber motifs of AI policy discussion). You just need to direct every agency to issue soft law that creates FUD. "A Federal Reserve Advisory Bulletin found that there may be backdoors in Chinese AI models." It needn't be that well justified. You just create enough regulatory risk that every regulated enterprise backs off. You probably don't want to create so much regulatory risk that you scare off the hyperscalers from serving Chinese models; this will just drive startups to sketchier providers. There's a happy middle ground here. I'd assume they will do some version of this. 6. It's probably true that open-weight models of this capability make the world a bit more dangerous, but not so much more that you'll really notice. At some point the models will be capable enough that you will notice. "A nonliving, invisible, dangerous, and infinitely self-replicating agent escaped from a Chinese lab," you say? Color me shocked.

@ZyMazza imo it has become un steerable i want claude sonnet 3.6 back

It's amazing how often my prompts take hours to resolve now. Part of it is that my prompts have gotten more complex as the models have grown to absorb more complexity But another part is that they do so much iterative checking and testing I used to have to do manually

@ZyMazza @Devon_Eriksen_ nonretards understand this part

@Devon_Eriksen_ my understanding was spinlaunch launched rockets, and the spin part just replaced the first stage of a multi stage rocket

Short answer: no. Long answer: nnnnnnnnnnnnnnooooooooooooooo. Detailed answer: To get into orbit, you need to follow a curved path. First you need to go up. This isn't to get to space, or because orbits can only happen high up. Orbits can theoretically happen at any height. In practice, you need to go up because you don't want to run into stuff that's near the ground... bushes, trees, mountains, buildings, Mark Cuban, and, most importantly, air. These things will all slow you down. And you need that to not happen, because the next step is to go sideways fast. Really fast. No, faster than that. You need to go sideways so fast that when you fall towards the ground again, you miss. That's what an "orbit" is. You fall and miss the whole damn planet. Then you keep swinging around in a circle, missing the planet forever. What this means is that no matter how hard can throw, you can never throw anything into orbit. It has to steer. Which means it has to provide its own thrust. Which means a rocket. So, no, a satellite cannot be sent into orbit (which is where satellites go), from the surface of the planet (which is what we are talking about) without a rocket. Or the best alternative to a rocket, which is a better rocket. Can you throw things into space like this? Absolutely. From our moon. Or Mars. Both of which are noted for not having much atmosphere to slow your projectile down. From Earth? I wouldn't recommend it. It would be like sitting at the bottom of a well trying to throw rocks out. When the well is full of water.

@_xErik420x_ @Tony_Baloney69 @Flock_Safety knew it

@Tony_Baloney69 @Flock_Safety That's 3D printed. 😽

You can just take flock cameras. Your tax dollars paid for them, they are legally your property. @Flock_Safety cant stop you.

@ennuipreneur @withtenacity all i can see

today i learned that California has magnetic sand beaches