Ah yes, the 0.50$/h support infrastructure from the places that cannot refuse the deal. "frontier" LLMs currently cosplay a dunk with google and late alzheimer's. Surely, they speed up brute-forcing correct answer a lot by trying more likely texts. And? This overfed markov chain doesn't need supporing infrastructure — it IS supporting infastructure, for the cognitive something that is not being worked on prominently, because all resources are needed to feed the markov chain.
The silence surrounding new LLM architectures is so loud that an abomination like "claw" gets prime airtime. Meanwhile models keep being released. Maybe the next one will be the lucky draw. It was pure luck, finding out how well LLMs scale, in the first place. Why shouldn't the rest of progress be luck driven too?
Pretty much, it's just that these overfed Markov chains when given a proper harness and agentic framework are able to produce entire software projects in a fraction of the time it used to take.
Sorry, I tought you meant "support infrastructure" in a much wider sense — yeah, LLMs are frighteningly good at lockpicking tests using source code shaped inputs. It's just that they are also frighteningly good at finding insane ways to game the tests, too. I wouldn't say that LLMs are very "G" in the AI they do — present them with confusing semantics, and they fall off the self-contradiction cliff. No capability of developing theory systematically from observations.
Your GoFundMe is still at $0. Putting myself in your shoes, to say that's probably demoralizing is an understatement.
I noticed that donating requires a real surname that matches the card info provided, which is then available to the organizer. That might be giving people here cold feet since you're a new account; the anonymous donation option just removes the name from public visibility.
Beyond that, having spent the better part of my day yesterday vetting this, I'd say the other items are:
a) Lack of source code that essentially proves you've got it working.
In a nutshell: imagine if the OpenClaw author took your approach, under your circumstances. I highly doubt it would've went anywhere. The way it went however, he ended up joining OpenAI.
Point being: from that same position, he could've instead raised funds no problem. That's the position you could be in if you take the OSS route, and indeed most startups these days begin as open source since proprietary is losing favor rapidly.
That said, myself being a fan of monolithic Rust binaries that do crazy stuff and having authored several professionally to great effect, I know precisely what you're building and indeed some of your competitors in the agentic isolation space are getting large funding rounds right now.
The point there being: you're not wrong that it could work, it's just that from your current position this is by far the riskiest path. With velocity what it is right now, witholding source might not matter all that much; you already have a project architecture description up that makes it easy enough unfortunately.
Please understand I'm not trying to trivialize your work here; I read all of your kernel.org correspondence. Nor am I trying to pressure you in bad faith into something you're not comfortable with. What I'm saying that if you take the OSS route, while you might not necessarily end up a rock star, you open up a hell of a lot of doors you otherwise wouldn't because you have people actually using it and going "Hey, this is pretty cool."
That moves your moat from technical (withholding source) to a social one.
If your project is as good as you say, even if it's alpha quality, there's a chance your project ends up the de-facto agentic isolation choice that people reach for. In the midst of a gold rush, that's an enviable position that might even exceed the best outcome on your current [proprietary] course.
b) A perceived attitude issue. Let me explain: I understand where you're coming from there, and were I an angel I'd personally select for a level of belief that borders on irresponsible and crazy. Most people don't think like that, so: respect.
However, it can come across as you saying you're too good for drudgery, essentially. I get that, you want to use your potential to its fullest and not doing so feels maddening. I had to bite the bullet and get a job in a similar situation that fell just short of total financial ruin, but what made that palatable to my belief system at the time (which was eerily similar to your current one), is this: the job was an instrumental objective in ensuring startup success. It's the same thing.
Regarding dead-end jobs, those might be what you want. If you're accustomed to working 18 hours a day recently, working one for 8 hours to put a roof over your head that has a lot of [safe] downtime—where most people aimlessly scroll on their phone—sounds like it'd work out pretty well for you relative to your current situation.
---
OK, now that I've had my turn at being insufferable and heaping on a bunch of unsolicited advice, some questions:
1. Has anyone reached out privately to help, or is the situation radio silence right now?
2. How is your food security? Shelter isn't doing great right now obviously, but I'm worried things might get truly dire.
3. Do you have any friends that can help? It doesn't sound like family is, given that awful situation you described. You mentioned autism, and having been a family man. I imagine your support network might not be all that great given you're here.
4. What's the status on your AI subs/compute? Putting myself in your shoes again, losing that capability would be terrifying in those circumstances.
---
I'm sorry you're going through this, it's truly heartbreaking. While I don't have angel-level resources and am dealing with my own issues currently, I'll be doing everything in my power to ensure you don't fall through the cracks.
What makes you think anything this person wrote contains generated or AI-edited comments?
That'd be like me assuming you don't have a soul. A rather callous assumption, really. Admittedly one with a better evidentiary foundation than your accusation.
Hot take: It's also totally unnecessary. The entire arms race is stupid.
Proper anti-cheat needs to be 0% invasive to be effective; server-side analysis plus client-side with no special privileges.
The problem is laziness, lack of creativity and greed. Most publishers want to push games out the door as fast as possible, so they treat anti-cheat as a low-budget afterthought. That usually means reaching for generic solutions that are relatively easy to implement because they try to be as turn-key as possible.
This reductionist "Oh no! We have to lock down their access to video output and raw input! Therefore, no VMs or Linux for anyone!" is idiotic. Especially when it flies in the face of Valve's prevailing trend towards Linux as a proper gaming platform.
There's so many local-only, privacy-preserving anti-cheat approaches that can be done with both software and dirt cheap hardware peripherals. Of course, if anyone ever figures that out, publishers will probably twist it towards invasive harvesting of data.
I'd love to be playing Marathon right now, but Bungie just wholesale doesn't support Linux nor VMs. Cool. That's $40 they won't get from me, multiply by about 5-10x for my friends. Add in the negative reviews that are preventing the game's Steam rating from reaching Overwhelmingly Positive and the damage to sales is significant.
I don't understand why do you think that having the option to have secure boot and a good, trustworthy sandbox for processes implies you cant run Linux on a VM or Linux beside Windows etc.
People always freak out when I mention secure boot, and the funniest response usually are the ones who threaten to abandon Windows for macOS (which has had secure boot for more than a decade by default)
I'm not super technically knowledgeable about secure boot, but as far as I understand, you need to have a kernel signed by a trusted CA, which sucks if you want to compile your own, but is a hurdle generally managed by your distro, if you're willing to use their kernel.
But if all else fails you can always disable secure boot.
>I don't understand why do you think that having the option to have secure boot and a good, trustworthy sandbox for processes implies you cant run Linux on a VM or Linux beside Windows etc.
I'm a big secure boot fan. The fact that it's becoming increasingly common for games to require it is the stupid part.
Said games tend to want that root of trust to be known OEM keys, not custom keys. At that point they're dictating the operating system and hardware you can use, and that's where that approach becomes garbage.
Hardware attestation should not be a requirement nor concern for games, period.
Afaik Vanguard (Anticheat of League of Legends, Valorant, other Riot Games titles) requires secure boot. This is pretty quickly getting to where mobile phones are today when it comes to disadvantages of opting out of trusted computing.
reply