drtz

The article clearly lays out that the take-home test was not a test of memorization, but a test of students' understanding of the class material and ability to reason about how different assumptions affect its conclusions.

Any semblance of capitalism we have is a shambling corpse barely getting around. Do you know who pulls on all the strings of our economy, gives out student aid loans to kids who just barely graduates high school? Who controls market interest rates, and gives massive multi billion dollar contracts to Companies like OpenAI, Anthropic, Facebook, Google, Microsoft? Who approved of the printing of the 50% increase in the dollar supply in the last 5 years?

Nothing in your provided definition of capitalism precludes government control of money supply, taxation, regulation, or even government contracts.

Private ownership still owns capital goods and private decision is the primary driver of investment, prices, production and distribution in most industries. This is why we have a hard time with things that are obviously good for society as a whole, like renewable energy, efficient transportation, and low-cost housing, that don't have a competitive short-term return on investment.

There's a huge difference between being shaken down highway robbery style "versus" pre-emptively paying the toll in advance for safe passage.

We've seen the shakedown of Anthropic out in the open. It's reasonable to assume that Sam Altman has seen it as well.

I think you're take is a bit off for multiple reasons.

First, people need transportation, not cars. For the vast majority of people, if you truly need a car, it's because your infrastructure was built in a way that doesn't provide any other modes of transportation.

Second, mass shootings aren't the intended effect of guns in the same way pedestrian fatalities aren't the intended effect of cars. Both cars and guns are providing some perceived value (personal transportation freedom and self-defense/safeguard against tyranny/national defense) with a significant number of deaths as a tradeoff.

Third, implying someone with a BAC over the legal limit for DRIVING is somehow responsible for getting killed while WALKING instead of driving is comical and darkly ironic considering drunk driving accounts for almost a third of traffic deaths in the US [1].

1. https://www.cdc.gov/impaired-driving/facts/index.html#:~:tex...

Bikes actually deliver a lot of packages and food in areas where car infrastructure hasn't made other forms of transportation practically impossible, and they do it much more cost-effectively.

On the medical front, that's quite a strawman. I doubt you'll find much of anyone opposed to using cars for medical and emergency services.

You can’t jump up and down screaming how amazing, powerful, and dangerous your new tech is and then act surprised and annoyed when the government shows up looking to regulate it.

It's entirely possible that models could be "dangerous" to fully release to the general public without guardrails and at the same time the government majorly overreacted in this case.

Releasing Mythos to selected researchers and companies at least gives those researchers a head start at addressing vulnerabilities before the model hits mainstream.

would we trust a Software engineer, which in general don’t always obtain the mathematical foundation to understand deep learning in the first place, on the trajectory of AI?

Valid point, but it suggests a mathematician who understands the math behind AI is more capable of grasping its trajectory, which is probably not the case.

People who are deep in the inner workings of this stuff day in and day out are the only ones who have a chance at having any real insight.

Websites are still inferior to Flash of the early 2000s. It's taken decades and they can only mimic a fraction of its power.

Is this a troll? What could an application do with Flash in 2005 that we can't do with a modern web application today (excluding the obvious answer of runtime vulnerabilities that allowed apps to escape the sandbox)?

Maybe I'm looking through rose colored glasses, but software that writes itself seems like a pretty big breakthrough to me.

Are you suggesting that performing a specific task without unnecessary abstractions is indicative of poor quality?

Having an account on a company's platform is a privilege, not a right.

Businesses can lose a lot traffic by not being present on Facebook and Instagram, so being unjustifiably banned is doing measurable financial harm in many cases.

Even as an individual it can be a huge pain to not have Facebook. The local individual sales market (e.g. classified ads) is dominated by Facebook Marketplace now, for example, and not having access to that market makes it difficult to sell things.

Meta has a responsibility to the community because of their position as the de facto platform for many activities. They've even intentionally positioned themselves to dominate. Having laws requiring them to act responsibly is totally justifiable.

Yeah it's bad, but AI isn't required for this type of thing to work.

My anecdotal experience is my Facebook account was compromised several years ago after TOTP 2FA was disabled. Didn't exactly give me a warm fuzzy about Facebook security policies at the time, and this new attack just reaffirms that.

Yes this is Google helping vendors block access to their APIs by using hardware attestation.

I recently hit the same wall trying to directly my garage door opener's API (MyQ).

I'd be amazed if Google enabling this behavior doesn't violate some EU competition laws.

I'm not a handyman, but I am a man who happens to be handy.

I have done quite a bit of painting and caulking for a guy who's not in the profession. I despise both with a passion, though, especially caulking, and I have never once been satisfied with a single paint or caulk job I've done. I feel like I'm the embodiment of "be bad at this for a long time," although I'm objectively probably halfway decent at it.

That is to say I think Ira Glass' quote of "You've just gotta fight your way through" to get where you want to be seems especially meaningful in the context of something like painting, where most everyone _can_ do it (or writing / storytelling in Ira's case), but very few are actually good at it.

What are you talking about, it had the option for nuanced responses

The prompt allowed for exactly four valid outputs and explicitly disallowed explanations and qualifiers.

Output exactly one label: True, Mostly True, Misleading, or False. No explanations, no qualifiers.

How is that a nuanced response?

These types of experiments prove to me that there is no real "reasoning" happening and "reasoning/thinking"

My suggestion is that five presumably reasoning and thinking humans would also have variation in their responses to the exact same prompt.

True or mostly true could easily be argued from a statistical likelihood perspective: life exists on Earth and, based on what we know, Earth doesn't appear to be all that special in a very large universe.

I think you could come up with a reasonable argument for any of the responses, hence the problem with the methodology.

It's a weird fact claim, because the ground truth is "nobody knows for sure" and that's not one of the available options.

It's even weirder to suggest that the disagreement is indicative of a problem. If you asked five very knowledgeable humans on this subject to select the correct answer on a multiple-choice questionnaire, they would almost certainly vary significantly more than these 5 LLMs.

Not to say that hallucination isn't a problem, but this is a lousy way to test it.

They are not coerced (stupidity is not coercion) into it

They are coerced in the same way as any other gambling: the false allure of easy money in a society built on financial struggle.

I tried with a couple other AI search tools and got much better responses. Google sucks here. Bad title? Yes. Real issue? Definitely.

https://scout.yahoo.com/chat/share/019e50d7-01fc-7db7-b6fa-9...

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/83ef441f-215f-4ae5-9b0f-e15...

The current state of AI affairs is a lot about outrightly selling some one else's intellectual property.

Blocking archiving in a flailing attempt to keep AIs away is extremely shortsighted. Archiving is important for keeping historical context, especially when it comes to news and journalism.

And this new thread was just demoted from the front page despite a lot of activity and upvotes in a short time.

Some people -- many people, actually -- use em dashes in their writing. Real people even use contrast to make a point on occasion, believe it or not. It's not AI writing that bothers me, it's the constant complaining about the supposed tells that prove something is AI-written.

Sincerely, A real human

Similar situation here. I primarily bounce between TypeScript, Python, and occasional Java -- all very well supported by JetBrains IDEs.

I occasionally try switching editors, most recently to vscode, but between the near flawless vim emulation, refactor functionality, and multi-language support I always come crawling back to JetBrains, despite the memory bloat and occasional buggy release.

Maybe that'll change someday, and I honestly hope something better comes along, but for now it just works better for my workflows and is worth the cost of admission.

Also Jetbrains IdeaVim plugin is the best vim emulation I’ve seen. Nothing comes close with vim plugins support, vimrc, and what have you.

Once every year or so I get annoyed with a bugged JetBalrains update or memory leaks. IdeaVim has been one of the main things pulling me back to JetBrains for a while now, although the neovim extension in vscode is also very good these days.

Providing tax breaks for construction that provides real, tangible benefits is one thing. Usually the argument is that a factory of some sort will provide long-term employment for residents.

What's the argument for a massive AI datacenter that employs very few people, strains infrastructure, and has the stated purpose of doing work that people had been doing, presumably reducing employment?

There's a lot of ground between gifting $3.3 billion in tax incentives to a megacorp for a short-term increase in construction employment and allowing a homeowner build a second dwelling on their lot.

Incidentally, that same $3.3 billion could build around 10,000 accessory dwellings in Baton Rouge.

surely as far as the carrier is concerned, all traffic from the mobile device is the same

Going on a bit of a tangent, but deep packet inspection can identify packets routed using NAT, so if the phone is operating as a typical hotspot it would be identifiable by your carrier. Carriers in the USA used to block / denylist / charge extra for tethering using this exact approach.

Would people really trust their personal assistant to tell them how many calories are in a sandwich just by glancing at it on a plate? I'm doubtful, and I would also expect a diabetic to be even more skeptical.

I left a career in RF and analog design about 15 years ago to go all-in on software. I liked technical aspects of hardware design, but the workplace culture was very lacking to say the least.

Hopefully things have improved since then, but my perception at the time was that engineers in the field were paid and treated quite poorly compared to software engineers, despite having a significantly higher barrier to entry in engineering difficulty and technical knowledge.

If the actual temperature at the airport is important to any set of users enough so that the difference between it being 18 or 22 deg C is relevant, one should expect that there be at least 3 sensors

Three sensors doesn't solve the problem. Manipulating becomes marginally more difficult with three sensors, but it's still very possible, and with enough monetary incentive it's still even likely that it happens again.

So why not 5 sensors? How about 10?

And what about more consequential issues like the toppling of governments or military blockades where true redundancy is impossible and people are actually harmed?

Is there not a point where you start to blame the incentives that are being chased?