HN user
I think it’s possible to observe something and be sure that it’s true in aggregate without being able to accuse any one individual of it. I propose that in those cases, bringing it up in response to an individual is not a good move. It doesn’t sound any less accusatory for being ostensibly about the general public.
That is a true statement. Here is another one:
Some people like to talk about “some people” snidely, instead of just coming out and saying “GP is bloodthirsty and gets a little thrill [etc].” Because of course, that’s what they mean, but they can’t back it up.
Just to clarify, I’m talking about you.
Indeed. I can’t find it, but I swear I knew after reading the announcement, without opening the model card. It stood out because it was so weird. Maybe they changed it before the first snapshot, maybe something else happened, I don’t know.
It was in the announcement, too. I’m 99% sure they edited it after they changed their mind, because I knew about it from reading that, and never opened the model card.
They didn’t get caught, they explicitly said they would do that in the announcement. I think it was both bad and a weird idea, but it certainly wasn’t sneaky.
Carlin didn’t say it was silly, he said it didn’t matter. Religion, communism, fascism were all world-defining ideas, and they very much mattered to those who fought for them and against them. What am I saying, “mattered”. Go check social media, they matter right now.
People the world over: (die for the right to vote)
One comedian: LOL they only killed them to make you think it was valuable.
The Internet: (sagely) What a wise assessment by a wise man of wisdom.
Agreed. My point was to question the use of “just“ to obscure an incredibly complicated process, which has been shown repeatedly to rely on generalizations that are indistinguishable from world models.
Now, it is true that the world they’re modeling is the world of tokens. But insofar as those tokens, be they text or images or videos, are themselves modeling the real world, LLMs do have a model of the real world.
Let me make this clear:
The United States predates you, and will almost certainly outlive you.
You, an individual with a microscopic lifespan and negligible influence in the grand sweep of history, do not in fact share any guilt for the things your ancestors did, nor do you deserve credit for the greatness they wrought. The United States, however, deserves blame where guilty and praise where worthy for what it did during its lifespan, which expands hundreds of years into the past, and with luck will continue into the future.
It’s not all about you.
Nothing about an LLM is “just”. In what precise sense do you mean it is probabilistic?
As expected by the exponential. The Wharton study was predicting when the exponential would turn into a sigmoid.
…yeah, that’s where you see the exponential?
Ah, I misread the post he was replying to.
What did you think it was pronounced as?
I wouldn’t either if I’d missed the previous word, “reporting”.
How do you know? If you have access you are not unbiased, otherwise you cannot know by definition.
The platonic ideal of how to dismiss any argument by anyone about anything.
If these claims were indeed serious, they would submit it for independent analysis somewhere.
They have. 40 different companies that have all committed resources to patching their systems based on vulnerabilities found by Mythos. One of them, Google, is a frontier AI lab that pointedly did not say that their own models have found similar vulnerabilities.
Defense contractors are required to submit their systems (secret sauce and all) for operational test and evaluation before they're fielded.
Does this look something like having 40 separate companies look at the outputs of the system, deciding that it’s real and they should do something about it, and committing resources to it?
At some point, “cynicism” is another word for “lalala can’t hear you”.
An interesting thing in AI history. For human history, it’s epochal.
The term of art for losing politically is “losing”.
The lead story was about the “useless” soldiers in a battle that was won. I think as a minimum effort one should look for an example where the battle was lost? Most companies can only wish their outcomes were as good as the US in World War II.
As someone who at first embraced the idea of prediction markets and is now ambivalent, sending them underground vastly reduces their harm. First, because discoverability is an issue. Second, there will be much less liquidity. Third, any gains will have to be laundered or hidden, making it even more difficult.
Maybe prediction markets are net positives, or maybe regulating them will make them so, but banning them does resolve most of their negative effects.
I do agree with this.
No, that’s not accurate at all, and in case you are genuinely confused:
1. Anthropic should be free to sell its services under whatever legal terms and conditions it wants.
2. The Pentagon should be free to buy those services, negotiate for different terms, refuse to buy those services, and terminate contracts subject to any termination clauses.
You may or may not agree with what the Pentagon wants to do, but if things had stayed there, there would be no real issue.
The problem is that the Pentagon is trying to bury Anthropic as a company, calling it a danger to the United States because it exerted its non-controversial right in (1).
Any “explanation” that doesn’t address that is confused itself or trying to confuse the issue.
I leave it to you as to which category the linked source falls under.
Yeah, none of this is new. I’m just saying we should acknowledge what we’re doing.
Either human is a special category with special privileges or it isn’t. If it isn’t, the entire argument is pointless. If it is, expanding the definition expands those privileges, and some are zero sum. As a real, current example, FEMA uses disaster funds to cover pet expenses for affected families. Since those funds are finite, some privileges reserved for humans are lost. Maybe paying for home damages. Maybe flood insurance rates go up. Any number of things, because pets were considered important enough to warrant federal funds.
It’s possible it’s the right call, but it’s definitely a call.
I don’t think that’s quite right. I’d say instead that if the singularity does happen, there’s no telling which beliefs will have mattered.
Yes, humans tell themselves stories to justify their choices. Are you telling yourself the story that only bad humans do that, and choosing to feel that you are superior and they are worth less? It might be okay to abuse them, if you think about it…
Don’t make me tap the “ads are cancer” sign.
In his defense, he got it before he did any of that. Before he did much of anything except get elected, really. Which was apparently sufficient.
(Everyone, including Obama, was pretty flummoxed by that prize.)
For 99.9% of issues, we rely on trust to make up our minds. We assume people are mostly not lying. If a group of people are found to lie, then yes, maybe “look for the truth behind the actual claims” is worth it, but more likely shooting them out of the discourse and into the metaphorical sun is the right response. If you walk around lying, you don’t get to complain that people aren’t doing research on your claims.