[FRIAM] To what questions can't an LLM in principle respond to?
steve smith
sasmyth at swcp.com
Fri Jul 12 17:36:47 EDT 2024
On 7/12/24 1:10 PM, Russ Abbott wrote:
> Yann Lecun points out that an LLM will take the same number of steps
> to construct its response to any input. So, in principle, an LLM can't
> respond to any question that requires more than a fixed finite number
> of steps.
https://medium.com/towards-data-science/prompt-engineering-for-cognitive-flexibility-44e490e3473d
deep in the heart of this article is an interesting play off between
endogenous (model) and exogenous (human-prompter) structure I haven't
followed any references yet but appreciate that there are folks doing
these types of experimentation...
>
> -- Russ
>
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2024, 10:19 AM Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com>
> wrote:
>
> What questions can’t a LLM in principle respond?
>
> And you may ask yourself, “Well, how did I get here?”
>
> And you may ask yourself, “How do I work this?”
>
> *From:*Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Nicholas
> Thompson
> *Sent:* Friday, July 12, 2024 10:09 AM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Is consciousness a mystery? (used to be
> "mystery...deeper".T
>
> Marcus,
>
> I agree with you that your two conditions
>
> i*/f 1) it had continuous real time training and 2) the training
> was coupled to the physical world through an array of sensors./*
>
> necessary for a system to be conscious. but unless you assert
> these conditions define a conscious system, you leave begging the
> question of what sort of experiences would lead you to assert that
> such a system is conscious. If, on the other hand, you do take
> these condition to be defining, then the statement that such a
> system is conscious is a tautology, without empirical implication.
>
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 12:50 PM Marcus Daniels
> <marcus at snoutfarm.com> wrote:
>
> Some supercomputer networks an effective radix of 64. Blue
> Gene Q had five-dimensional real torus for connectivity.
> These network fabrics are typically autonomous remote DMA
> systems that are configured so that processors do not have to
> intervene in data transfers.
>
> Extreme ultraviolet lithography systems can fabricate 100
> layers for a digital processor.
>
>
> It seems to me a LLM would have a sort of consciousness if 1)
> it had continuous real time training and 2) the training was
> coupled to the physical world through an array of sensors.
>
> *From:*Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Prof
> David West
> *Sent:* Friday, July 12, 2024 9:00 AM
> *To:* friam at redfish.com
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Is consciousness a mystery? (used to be
> "mystery...deeper".T
>
> Two separate responses:
>
> first to Steve—Personally, I do believe in the spectrum of
> "consciousness" you suggest with, perhaps a nuance. One
> contributor tot he spectrum is simply quantity; a quanta has 1
> 'bit' of consciousness, an octopus has Domegegemegrottebyte
> (real thing according to Wikipedia) 'bits'. A more significant
> contributor is "organization." Molecules with differing
> numbers of atoms of the same elements, organized differently,
> have very different properties and behaviors. A human and an
> octopus might have the same number of bits of consciousness,
> but the organization of those bits (in an N-dimensional space)
> is radically different.
>
> This means it may be possible to say that some threshold
> quantity and and organization results in entities being
> included in the set of generically conscious things, it is
> unlikely we will ever be able to say that Consciousness-Human
> is identical to or even similar to Consciousness-octopus.
>
> BTW: much of my antipathy to AI claims arises from this
> perspective. A machine very well might have the requisite
> number of 'bits' of consciousness from the material of which
> the embodying machine is composed (and the fact that every 1/0
> bit of the executing code has a 'bit' of consciousness) and
> those bits will be 'organized' sufficiently to join the
> generic set; but machine consciousness will never equate to
> human consciousness. My objections to machine "intelligence"
> comes from the fact that machines do not have the
> N-dimensional organization of humans or octopi.
>
> to Nick—
>
> Beware blatant anthropomorphism (applied to both Dave and Dusty)
>
> Dave is sleepy and calm.
>
> Dusty is anxious and afraid.
>
> Dusty crawls onto Dave's shoulder and finds reassurance and
> security.
>
> Dave is tolerant and does not shove Dusty off bed.
>
> Dave senses Dusty's need for reassurance and rests his arm
> across her back and lets her stay as she is.
>
> Dusty relaxes and goes to sleep.
>
> Love is not present in this transaction, unless you presume
> that a series of prior interactions created a kind of
> meta-state of Lovingness between the two and absent that state
> the interactions and 'feelings; as presented would not have
> occurred. But, perhaps Dave is just an (occasionally) good
> Buddhist showing Dusty the same respect he would express to
> any living being?
>
> davew
>
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2024, at 7:02 PM, steve smith wrote:
>
> Nick -
>
> (of course) I've larded up my usual style of response
> below (maybe only for my own need to "express" the buildup
> of mental-pus that comes with everything I hear here and
> elsewhere) but to save you (and anyone else who cares) the
> burden of parsing a few dozen lines of back-and-forth, I
> offer the punchline. If you are curious about how I came
> to said (vaguely) concise punchline you can read the rest
> after the <horizontal line> element below:
>
> A) Can you recognize that there is a spectrum/continuum of
> things you would acknowledge as "conscious" between the
> two extrema (perhaps) of a (presumably apex-complex)
> human/cephalopod/cetacean and that of a quark or a brane
> or a string-loop or some abstract monad? B) if yes, what
> are the implications of this? or C) why does quantizing
> "conscioiusness" into "humans like me" and "every other
> bit of life" feel necessary, useful or appealing?
>
> Steve
>
> If FriAM typical discourse is the Thunderstorm, is this a
> (weak) cuddle?
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Steve,
>
> The scale of your response alone suggests that it
> cannot be baby steps.
>
> Thus recognizing it was more of a baby (naive) pentathalon
> (long, arduous and multi-modal) hellride of a traverse
> through the implied space.
>
> I guess I am proposing a method here, one inn we work
> outward from an evocative experience to explore our
> understandings of contraversial concepts, and that we
> do it in relatively short bursts.
>
> yes, let us extrude short strands of noodle and see how
> they criss-cross.
>
> */Dusty comes to cuddle with David when she hears
> thunder./*
>
> */Does Dusty love David?/*
>
> Dave (or does he self-identify as David?) loves Dusty and
> finds Dusty's cuddling sufficiently similar/familiar to
> his own cuddling to attribute it to love if he is in the
> mood to do so.
>
> If yes, what else would you expect Dusty to do with
> respect to David. given you have made that attribution.
>
> If no, what more would have Dusty have to do, before
> you would make such an attribution.
>
> Qualified yes... Dusty could cower under the bed, leaving
> Dave to choose to coax Dusty out and cuddle Dusty, giving
> Dusty the "love" or at least comfort which Dave would
> offer as the closest cross-species expression of love he
> knows how to offer in this moment. Dave loves Dusty,
> Dusty dog-loves Dave. They are reciprocal but asymmetric
> in quality, even if either would give their lives for the
> other?
>
> I would like to respond to an inference that there is
> something patronizing about my insisting on a method,
> as if I think you need thought-therapy and I am the
> guy to give it.
>
> If in fact you were to have intended (consciously or not)
> as patronizing, I take it as an gesture of love, of filial
> empathy, of generous guidance from someone who has been
> around at least as many trees as I have... I definitely
> need or seek thought/spiritual therapy/guaidance from
> every quarter, including this one.
>
> In reply, I only would say that if somebody were
> willing to ask me short, to-the-point questions about
> my thinking on any matter and explore carefully my
> answers, I would eternally grateful. I might even
> cuddle with them in a thunderstorm.
>
> I would choose to give you this level of fine-grain
> attention around your fascination with vortices in the
> context of meteorology (and other domains) more than this
> domain, but if this is the one you prefer (for the
> moment), let me ask a short, three-part but to-the-point
> question (and leave it to you to ignore the fecundly laden
> pregnant assumptions hidden by the implied simplicity of
> the construction):
>
> _A) Can you recognize that there is a spectrum/continuum
> of things you would acknowledge as "conscious" between the
> two extrema (perhaps) of a (presumably apex-complex)
> human/cephalopod/cetacean and that of a quark or a brane
> or a string-loop or some abstract monad? B) if yes, what
> are the implications of this? or C) why does quantizing
> "conscioiusness" into "humans like me" and "every other
> bit of life" feel necessary, useful or appealing?_
>
> Steve
>
> Steve
>
> NIck
>
> Nick
>
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 4:05 PM steve smith
> <sasmyth at swcp.com> wrote:
>
> Nick -
>
> I'm glad you acknowledged (in another branch of
> this thread?) the "grumpiness" aspect of your
> initiation/participation in this thread. Your
> analogy around thought/feeling "expression" and
> that of pimple popping is in fact very apt if a
> bit graphic. I do think many of us want this
> apparently deeply thorny/paradoxical problem to be
> easier than it is? And the plethora of complexly
> subtle dis/mis-agreements on language around
> consciousness, intelligence, cognition, (self)
> awareness, qualia complicates that yet more.
>
> I don't know if my own baby-steps are helpful,
> given that my background/perspective might align
> more with DaveW than most others here (I'm very
> sympathetic with a pan-consciousness perspective)?
> maybe it parses as baby-babble more than baby-steps...
>
> I missed most of this (and related) threads
> but am surprised at where this seems to be
> going. I always associated consciousness with
> subjective experience and not necessarily with
> self awareness. The "hard problem of
> consciousness" is qualia, not self-awareness.
> No? An AI agent cannot understand language on
> anything other than a superficial basis
> because it has no idea what, for example
> "wet," means. Nevertheless, it will be quite
> good at stringing words together that say
> coherent things about wetness. An AI agent has
> no /idea /about anything. At the same time, an
> AI agent will be quite good at creating
> coherent statements about very many things.
> Just because an AI agent is able to create
> coherent statements does not mean that those
> statements reflect the agent's ideas--since it
> has no ideas.
>
> Russ's point here is a good pivot point for me in
> this conversation if it is possible to make the
> pivot. It may not be.
>
> Knowing and Knowing-About:
>
> I use the former to be the quality of
> qualia... not easily formalizeable nor
> quantifiable nor with obvious models which are
> not intrinsically subjective. "Knowing-About"
> is for me reserved for the formalized models
> of "facts about the world and relations
> between ideas" and when I say "formalized" I
> don't preclude storytelling or the highly
> vilified "just so stories".
>
> Formalized mathematical, statistical, logical
> models with digital computer simulations (or
> analog electronic, mechanical, hydraulic,
> pneumatic "circuits" or "systems") are
> "knowing about"... a steam train for example
> embodies "knowing about" converting
> carbon-fuel into linear motion across long
> distances, carrying heavy loads by way of many
> repeatable mechanisms... the implementation
> and operation of such a device/system is a
> "proof" in some sense of the design.
>
> On top of that design/system are other
> design/systems (say the logic of Railroad
> Robber Baronages) upon which yet other systems
> (say Industrial-revolution era
> proto-hyper-capitalism) on top of which rides
> trans-global corporatism and nationalism in
> their own "gyre and gimbal" with a in
> intra-stellar and eventually inter-stellar
> variation in the sense of Asimov's Foundation
> and Empire or perhaps for the youth culture
> here (under 60?) George Lucas' Star Wars
> Empire or Roddenberry's Star Trek Federation
> vs ???
>
> Consciousness:
>
> A the lowest level consciousness or perhaps
> proto-consciousness registers for me as
> "having a model of the world useful for
> guiding behaviour toward
> surviving/thriving/reproducing/collectivizing".
> This permeates all of life from somewhere down
> at the single-celled
> bacteria/archaea/fungi/phyto-thingies/ up to
> and through vertebrates/mammals/hominids/sapiens
>
> On the reflection of whether my cat or dog, or
> the hummingbirds outside my window or the mice
> trying to sneak back into my house have
> "consciousness", or even more pointedly the
> mosquito I slapped into a blood (my blood by
> the way) spot on my forearm last night, have
> "consciousness"... while each of these
> appear to have a "consciousness" I know it to
> be variously more or less familiar to my
> own. My elaborate (unfettered?) imagination
> allows me to make up (just so?) stories about
> how cetaceans, cephalapods, jellyfish all
> variously have aspects of their
> "consciousness' that I could (do?) recognize
> (empathize with?). So I would want a
> multivalued function with at least two simple
> scalars: Familiarity-to-Me(Conscioiusness) and
> Potency-of(Consciousness), pick your scale...
> my identical twin or maybe conjoined twin
> might max out on the first scale while a
> nematode or a bacterium might trail off toward
> nil on the first AND second scale. And beyond
> the scale of organic life into artificial life
> and beyond, the "familiarity" of a glider or
> oscillator in the GameO'Life or the braided
> rings of Saturn, even less significant but not
> zero? The Potency-scale seems to be something
> like *agency* which feels absolute for most of
> us except Robert Sapolsky while the *agency*
> of an electron or neutrino seems registered at
> *absolute zero*, though the Quantum
> Consciousness folks maybe put it at max and
> our own more an illusive projection of that?
>
> The idea of "collective individuation" (e.g.
> mashup of Eleanor Ostrom's collectives and
> Jung's individuation) suggests that
> perception, cognition, intelligence, even
> consciousness may well be a collective
> phenomena. Our organs, tissues, cells,
> organelles, macromolecules, CHON++ molecules,
> atoms, baryons/fermions, quarks, strings,
> branes are on a loose hierarchy of
> diminishing Familiarity-Consciousness and
> Potency-Consciousness. I'm more interested
> (these days) in the emergent collective
> consciousness of the noosphere and perhaps the
> symbiotic culture of humanity and
> life-at-all-scales (SCHLAAS?) it feels wild
> and science-fictiony to assert that earth's
> biosphere has already (in the last 150 years)
> conjured a nervous system, a global-brain (ala
> Francis Heylighen: Global Brain Institute)
>
> https://globalbraininstitute.org/ with "our
> own" Bollen, Joslyn, Rodriguez still on the
> Board of Technical Advisors. I scoffed at
> this somewhat 25 years ago (mostly because of
> the hubris of "Global" and "Brain").
>
> OK Nick, so not "baby steps" more like a
> hyper-baby's mad dash through an obstacle course
> or maybe a pentathalon? I tried shunting all
> this to George Tremblay IVo but he referred me to
> Gussie Tumbleroot who cheered me on on my
> careening ideational orbits.
>
> Gurgle,
>
> - Steve
>
> -- Russ Abbott
>
> Professor Emeritus, Computer Science
>
> California State University, Los Angeles
>
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 9:30 AM Frank Wimberly
> <wimberly3 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Glen,
>
> This is a test to illustrate somethiing
> about Gmail to Nick.
>
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 4:37 PM glen
> <gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347215003085
>
> On July 9, 2024 2:04:29 PM PDT, Prof
> David West <profwest at fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> Maybe I should not be replying, as
> I do believe my dogs (and your cat
> if you have one) are conscious.
>
> I have not experienced a Vulcan
> Mind-Meld with either of my dogs,
> so I cannot say with certainty
> they are conscious—I must infer it
> from observations:
>
> 1- interactions with other dogs
> would seem to indicate they
> "remember" past interactions and
> do not require the same
> butt-sniffing protocol with dogs
> they have met at the park
> frequently. Also they seem to
> remember who plays with who and
> who doesn't. "That ball is not
> mine, this one is."
>
> 2-they modify their behavior
> depending on the tenor, sharpness,
> and volume of barks, ear
> positions, tail wagging
> differences, by the other dogs;
> e.g., "that's enough."
>
> 3-They do not communicate to me in
> English, but seem to accept
> communication from me in that
> language—not trained responses to
> commands, but "listening to
> conversations" between myself and
> Mary and reacting to words (e.g.,
> dog park) that are exchanged in
> those conversations. Mary and I
> are totally sedentary and speaking
> in conversational tone, so pretty
> sure there we are not sending
> 'signals' akin to training words,
> training tone of voice.
>
> 4-they seem to remember trauma,
> (one of our dogs spent three days
> with dead owner before anyone knew
> the owner was deceased and will
> bite if anyone tries to forcefully
> remove him from my (current bonded
> owner) presence.
>
> 5-seek "psychological comfort" by
> crawling into my bed and sleeping
> on my shoulder when the
> thunderstorm comes.
>
> */_All of these are grounded in
> anthropomorphism—long considered a
> deadly error by
> ethologists._/*(Some contemporary
> ethologists are exploring
> accepting and leveraging this
> "error" to extend our
> understanding of animal behavior.)
>
> davew
>
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2024, at 2:54 PM,
> Nicholas Thompson wrote:
>
> While I find all the
> ancillary considerations
> raised on the original thread
> extremely interesting, I would
> like to reopen the discussion
> of Conscious as a Mystery and
> ask that those that join it
> stay close to the question of
> what consciousness is and how
> we know it when we see it.
> Baby Steps.
>
> Where were we? I think I was
> asking Jochen, and perhaps
> Peitr and anybody else who
> thought that animals were not
> conscious (i.e., not aware of
> their own awareness) what
> basis they had in experience
> for thinking that.. One
> offering for such an
> experience is the absence of
> language in animals. Because
> my cat cannot describe his
> experience in words, he cannot
> be conscious. This requires
> the following syllogism:
>
> Nothing that does not employ a
> language (or two?) is conscious.
>
> Animals (with ;the possible
> exception of signing apes) do
> not employ languages.
>
> Ergo, Animals are not conscious.
>
> But I was trying to find out
> the basis for the first
> premise. How do we know that
> there are no non-linguistic
> beings that are not
> conscious. I hope we could
> rule out the answer,"because
> they are non-linguistic", both
> in its strictly tautological
> or merely circular form.
>
> There is a closely related
> syllogism which we also need
> to explore:
>
> All language using beings are
> conscious.
>
> George Peter Tremblay IV is a
> language-using being.
>
> George Peter Tremblay IV is
> conscious.
>
> Both are valid syllogisms. But
> where do the premises come from.
>
> Nick
>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -..
> / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. ---
> -.. .
>
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group
> listserv
>
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St.
> Johns Cafe / Thursdays
> 9a-12p Zoom
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
>
> to (un)subscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
> FRIAM-COMIC
> http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
> archives: 5/2017 thru present
> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>
> 1/2003 thru 6/2021
> http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / --
> --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
>
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe
> / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
>
> to (un)subscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
> FRIAM-COMIC
> http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
> archives: 5/2017 thru present
> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>
> 1/2003 thru 6/2021
> http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
> --
>
> Frank Wimberly
>
> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz
>
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
>
> 505 670-9918
>
> Research:
> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2
>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- ---
> .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
>
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe /
> Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
>
> to (un)subscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
> archives: 5/2017 thru present
> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>
> 1/2003 thru 6/2021
> http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
>
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoomhttps://bit.ly/virtualfriam
>
> to (un)subscribehttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
> FRIAM-COMIChttp://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
> archives: 5/2017 thru presenthttps://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>
> 1/2003 thru 6/2021http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
>
>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... .
> / -.-. --- -.. .
>
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe /
> Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
>
> to (un)subscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
> archives: 5/2017 thru present
> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>
> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
>
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoomhttps://bit.ly/virtualfriam
>
> to (un)subscribehttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
> FRIAM-COMIChttp://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
> archives: 5/2017 thru presenthttps://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>
> 1/2003 thru 6/2021http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
>
>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-.
> --- -.. .
>
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays
> 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
>
> to (un)subscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
> archives: 5/2017 thru present
> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>
> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p
> Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (un)subscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: 5/2017 thru present
> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: 5/2017 thru present
> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoomhttps://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (un)subscribehttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIChttp://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: 5/2017 thru presenthttps://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
> 1/2003 thru 6/2021http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20240712/b9a64fdb/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Friam
mailing list