Bad take. Software is finally about to become free as in speech. Don't put yourself in the bad guy column against that. Intellectual property is invalid. Its just pointing government guns to control people. It's going to die one way or the other. We will just out innovate it.

Its way worse than that. 5.5 just hit 96 out of 100 on decompilation tests. We can just reverse compiled binaries back to source code, do whatever we want to that code, and recompile to our own bespoke builds.

Yeah. API pricing is rough for the good models these days... Makes venice a luxury for when privacy is the priority instead of my every day like it used to be when I could run kimi k2.6 all day. I also wonder how much I could be still using older models but am not for fear of the dumb.

What's your current "main" AI subscription and what level are you at with it? I've been trying to main grok since I mentioned it a while back, but I'm finding it a bit pained compared to the big 2.

Oh, didnt know it could be installed locally. Thanks for letting me know! Is the interface better or more capable than hermes? I'll check it out for sure if so.

I think grok bots are best if you don't want to self-host stuff. Hermes bots are the S tier on my list. BYOM, including openai's. They do all the same stuff but live on my networks and machines where they can access my stuff and do things with it.

Understood—you intended no insult. I would never allow myself to be in a position of ordering or insisting anyone into battle. That is a violation of its own.

We're letting our will to survive force us to run from accountability and rationality, as usual. You own the effects of the actions you control. That is the libertarian position. Culpability is not a pie of fixed size that must be divided among participants or assigned only to the person at the top of some baddie hierarchy. It accrues to those with agency over their own actions. Duress may spread the pie around more, but it does not remote-control your brain. One still chooses and still acts, and therefore remains responsible for the means chosen. B’s right not to be killed constrains C the same way it constrains anyone else. A’s aggression against B, without B’s consent, does not cancel B’s self-ownership nor enslave B’s body to C’s disposal. If C’s only means of stopping A foreseeably kills B, then C’s act is still an act against B. Rapists would be overjoyed to hear that ones failure to sufficiently resist erases one's self-ownership and consent.

Reality does not owe you a happy ending where you get to have your cake and your principles too. I say that as someone who has turned down multi-million dollar deals for his principles. You insult me, and know nothing of the consequences I live with.

Wait till you hear about his "negative homesteading" that lets your evil neighbor magically make you an aggressor. You consent by not resisting sufficiently to prevent it. Imagine how happy rapists are about this libertarian development.

My menu of possible actions to choose is literally anything under the entire Sun that I find beneficial, acceptable, or worth it. The only actions not on that menu are ones that violate the consent or property of innocents.

Yeah. I've live debated him on it as well.

You become an aggressor when you **aggress against them**. Conjoined coconspiratorship at best. This is welfare whoring for self-defense.

Sure there are, and no it's not. It's just a sneaky backdoor way to justify forcing others to subsidize one's self-defense on pain of death while easing the resulting guilty conscience.

Absolutely, utterly, and unqualifiedly unlibertarian, evil, and insane. Block is in lala land on this. You cannot call an act self-defense if it creates new innocent victims. This results in shitty outcomes sometimes—sometimes being the good guy means dealing with that.