nopromisessir

I do not speak Swedish, but I looked into this via machine translation.

My understanding is that the discussion can be found around this timestamp link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4goynP4mHYI&t=1h18m43s

According to the machine translation, Allard explicitly frames his argument around cultural assimilation, economic contribution, and behavior rather than biological ethnicity or skin color alone.

In public statements, he has routinely asserted that an individual's racial background or skin color is irrelevant to his politics.

Look, I'm not some Allard supporter. Don't know the guy, not even Swedish. Easily found some stuff on their platform which I quickly disagree with. I really doubt he's literally out there just calling for mass deportation of folks based on ethnicity. That is actual ethnonationism. Swedish people are from a nice free society and are accustomed to low crime and low problems. They've got this 2nd generation migrant issue that lots of Europe is dealing with.

The definition of ethnonationist is being used so flipantly throughout this thread.

Do your really think this guy is just standing up saying 'remigrate all dark skinned folks who got here recently'?

Even if that were his true political goals, it would be pretty self defeating to just charge onto the stage going full Nazi. He wouldn't have this much movement.

Lots of discussion surrounding what ethnonationism is...

Ethnonationalism: Defined by shared ancestry, lineage, and cultural heritage. Membership is exclusive and inherited by birth, focusing on preserving a specific ethnic identity.

Civic Nationalism: Defined by shared political principles, values, and laws. Membership is inclusive and open to anyone who adheres to the state's legal framework, regardless of background.

Does the party call for remigration or a lower status for immigrants who have committed no crimes, found jobs and are not a disproportionate drain on the welfare state? To be ethnonationist, I believe they must call for that on the basis of us vs them. Perhaps someone can provide evidence of this. I haven't seen any. Seems like they are very upset about crime and welfare drain. Also they have a bunch other non immigration related positions that some might label as extreme.

You are telling me that this party's platform is literally that Swedish decent people are superior... Full stop... Because that is the ethnofascist(Nazi) position.

If so, I'd be keen to see clear evidence of that.

There may be people in the party who want to expel folks just because they are not 'Swedish'. I doubt that's the official party line. If it is, perhaps you can find me a citation on that.

The distinction is that a person can be ethnicity agnostic while being very strict about deporting immigrants who commit crimes. In the case of Sweden, it appears to me that the evidence indicates the primary concern is folks born to non-native parents. See the exert below from their Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention:

"The proportion of the various groups registered as suspects for any type of crime are as follows: • 3.2 percent of persons born in Sweden to two native-born parents (4.8 percent of men, 1.5 percent of women). • 5.9 percent of persons born in Sweden to one non-native parent (8.6 percent of men, 3.1 percent of women). • 10.2 percent of persons born in Sweden to two non-native parents (15.3 percent of men, 4.8 percent of women). • 8.0 percent of persons born abroad (12.2 of men, 3.9 percent of women)."

https://bra.se/download/18.45e4b8e192705389a34c2b/1729515966...

If I am a true-blue ethnonationalist, I want all non-Swedish ethnicities deported/remigrated or relegated to lower social status. This would be the Nazi position... White skin blue eyes = superior.

If I am a tough on crime migrant skeptic, I call for deportation of non-native's who commit crimes without concern for their specific ethnicity/origin. I can't be in the Nazi party, because I don't think German descent people are superior. I think anyone who migrates to our country and then commits crimes is undesirable. I would just as easily call for the deportation of any ethnic background.

I looked into this a bit, because I was curious if there was actual evidence driving these political movements. As it turns out, there is and it has been studied. The primary pain point(crime) comes in when the 2nd generation doesn't economically assimilate. If a non-native family economically assimilates they then apparently actually have lower likelihood of criminal activity than a native family.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_nationalism

Agree and so sick of this being thrown around.

Such an overreaction and mischaracterization.

Being unable to evaluate an anti immigration party without labeling them ethnonationist shows a pretty glaring blind spot.

This post seems like an overreaction to me.

Being this sensitive to company leadership political activity is going to exhaust a person and time would be better spent being careful to buy products with minimal value added from authoritarian nations with a history of gross human rights issues.

Lots of counties don't want immigration, especially after they let a large group in and deal with integration challenges. The CCP forcefully places ethnic Han into minority homes to function as de facto informants. The Russians broke up Finnish/Ukrainian families en masse, moving them to the other end of Russia to minimize the likelihood of dissent in occupied areas.

There are a lot worse ideas at play in the world than some of the more extreme suggestions that this very infant-sized Swedish party flirt with. On a scale of 1-10 heinousness, barely registers on the global stage.

My thinking goes more like this:

This product I bought from this nation... Does that Nation tend to value human rights, freedom of expression and liberal values? Sweden... Check.

I can buy Swedish products all day. They make nice jets and mobile artillery that push back on the really bad ideas. One CEO's affiliation with an anti immigration populist party which honestly doesn't seem that serious... They've got some Marxist ideas in there. I really doubt these guys go much of anywhere in their current form. It's a capitalist society. Some of their ideas will stick but the party is immature. I wouldn't worry so much.

We pay a lot of people in Russia.

Unsurprising we know about it.

It's clearly elite though. They are making sophisticated moves. How do they rate on the global stage? I'm not sure. I have to assume, lower quality than the west but better than less wealthy nations.

I make no argument regarding whether their actions are effective or not. Only suggesting what they might be thinking are the reasons they take these actions.

Honestly if they had blown up our planes... I'd say there is a real chance we blow up that shiny building where they planned that.

It's even possible we told them exactly that and this is why the plot didn't continue.

Essentially an escalatory action in response to US support in order to signal their seriousness about their territorial expansion.

It says... We can touch you in the United States and are willing to do it. The implication is that they might even be willing to conduct terrorist attacks against our civilians.

Could be a play that they thought might put them in a better negotiation position... If you can believe that.

This is my read as a civilian who follows war. I am not an expert.

Frankly, I posted this hoping to attract some discussion amongst those who might actually be able to provide a decent read.

I started reading this and have upvoted. Interesting stuff.

Is the paper of practical use in life or more an area of interest?

In short, why did you post this? Just curious.

The organization was planning:

- assasination of the CEO of Rheinmetall... the largest defense company in Germany

- explosive devices on planes destined for the United States

- arson throughout Europe

Serious characters.

https://archive.ph/r8Rhw

Logging my doubt that the target of your comment actually read the entirety of the article.

True story. I share your frustration.

I found your writing useful.

Hopefully the landscape will improve.

We are translating language from a ton of other species. Now we can see that they are using names and probably sharing information.

The brightest minds now want to use machine learning to tease out more low level features of language itself, across various species.

We are already calling monkeys and elephants by their native names y'all... And they are responding to this...

Think about it... This research is unlikely to stall. We're barely scratching the surface. The animals were having more nuanced conversation than we thought. They've been doing this for millions of years...

Condescension toward nature... Usually a mistake. I'm not saying they are all philosophers, but it seems very likely they've been having some pretty advanced conversations surrounding their own affairs. If we can call them by their name... Probably we're going to unlock some pretty interesting communication.

No. Never met her.

I study managers. She's a manager. HN is rife with defamation. Sometimes I push back where it's particularly egregious and on a topic I know well.

Honestly, I bother a lot less. I'm not sure there is hope for this community.

The same happened with reddit.

I don't get this.

I could write paragraphs...

Why the rain clouds?

Below are exerts from the article you link. I'd suggest a more careful read through. Unless out of hand, you give zero credibility to first hand accounts given to the NYT by both Mirati and Sustkever...

This piece is built on conjecture from a source whose identify is withheld. The sources version of events is openly refuted by the parties in question. Offering it as evidence that Mirati intentionally made political moves in order to get Altman ousted is an indefensible position.

'Mr. Sutskever’s lawyer, Alex Weingarten, said claims that he had approached the board were “categorically false.”'

'Marc H. Axelbaum, a lawyer for Ms. Murati, said in a statement: “The claims that she approached the board in an effort to get Mr. Altman fired last year or supported the board’s actions are flat wrong. She was perplexed at the board’s decision then, but is not surprised that some former board members are now attempting to shift the blame to her.” In a message to OpenAI employees after publication of this article, Ms. Murati said she and Mr. Altman “have a strong and productive partnership and I have not been shy about sharing feedback with him directly.”

She added that she did not reach out to the board but “when individual board members reached out directly to me for feedback about Sam, I provided it — all feedback Sam already knew,” and that did not mean she was “responsible for or supported the old board’s actions.”'

This part of NYT piece is supported by evidence:

'Ms. Murati wrote a private memo to Mr. Altman raising questions about his management and also shared her concerns with the board. That move helped to propel the board’s decision to force him out.'

INTENT matters. Mirati says the board asked for her concerns about Altmans. She provided it and had already brought it to Altmans attention... in writing. Her actions demonstrate transparency and professionalism.

If you care to detail supporting evidence, I'd be keen to see.

Please no speculative pieces, rumor nor hearsay.

Sure didn't.

Neither did she though... To my knowledge.

Can you provide any evidence that she tried to do that? I would ask that it be non-speculative in nature please.

Many hours of interviews.

Organizational performance metrics.

Frequency of scientific breakthroughs.

Frequency and quality of product updates.

History of consistently setting the state of the art in artificial intelligence.

Demonstrated ability to attract world class talent.

Released the fastest growing software product in the history of humanity.

She might just be stressed out. Happens all the time. She's in a very demanding position.

She's a pro. Lots to learn from watching how she operates.

Highly speculative.

Also highly cynical.

Some folks are professional and mature. In the best organisations, the management team sets the highest possible standard, in terms of tone and culture. If done well, this tends to trickle down to all areas of the organization.

Another speculation would be that she's resigning for complicated reasons which are personal. I've had to do the same in my past. The real pro's give the benefit of the doubt.

Definition of Reasoning in AI:

In artificial intelligence, reasoning is the cognitive process of drawing conclusions, making inferences, and solving problems based on available information. It involves:

Logical Deduction: Applying rules and logic to derive new information from known facts. Problem-Solving: Breaking down complex problems into smaller, manageable parts. Generalization: Applying learned knowledge to new, unseen situations. Abstract Thinking: Understanding concepts that are not tied to specific instances. AI researchers often distinguish between two types of reasoning:

System 1 Reasoning (Intuitive): Fast, automatic, and subconscious thinking, often based on pattern recognition. System 2 Reasoning (Analytical): Slow, deliberate, and logical thinking that involves conscious problem-solving steps. Testing for Reasoning in Models:

To determine if a model exhibits reasoning, AI scientists look for the following:

Novel Problem-Solving: Can the model solve problems it hasn't explicitly been trained on? Step-by-Step Logical Progression: Does the model follow logical steps to reach a conclusion? Adaptability: Can the model apply known concepts to new contexts? Explanation of Thought Process: Does the model provide coherent reasoning for its answers? Analysis of the Cipher Example:

In the cipher example, the model is presented with an encoded message and an example of how a similar message is decoded. The model's task is to decode the new message using logical reasoning.

Steps Demonstrated by the Model:

Understanding the Task:

The model identifies that it needs to decode a cipher using the example provided. Analyzing the Example:

It breaks down the given example, noting the lengths of words and potential patterns. Observes that ciphertext words are twice as long as plaintext words, suggesting a pairing mechanism. Formulating Hypotheses:

Considers taking every other letter, mapping letters to numbers, and other possible decoding strategies. Tests different methods to see which one aligns with the example. Testing and Refining:

Discovers that averaging the numerical values of letter pairs corresponds to the plaintext letters. Verifies this method with the example to confirm its validity. Applying the Solution:

Uses the discovered method to decode the new message step by step. Translates each pair into letters, forming coherent words and sentences. Drawing Conclusions:

Successfully decodes the message: "THERE ARE THREE R'S IN STRAWBERRY." Reflects on the correctness and coherence of the decoded message. Does the Model Exhibit Reasoning?

Based on the definition of reasoning in AI:

Novel Problem-Solving: The model applies a decoding method to a cipher it hasn't seen before. Logical Progression: It follows a step-by-step process, testing hypotheses and refining its approach. Adaptability: Transfers the decoding strategy from the example to the new cipher. Explanation: Provides a detailed chain of thought, explaining each step and decision. Conclusion:

The model demonstrates reasoning by logically deducing the method to decode the cipher, testing various hypotheses, and applying the successful strategy to solve the problem. It goes beyond mere pattern recognition or retrieval of memorized data; it engages in analytical thinking akin to human problem-solving.

Addressing the Debate:

Against Reasoning (ActorNightly's Perspective):

Argues that reasoning requires figuring out new information without prior training. Believes that LLMs lack feedback loops and can't perform tasks like optimizing a bicycle frame design without explicit instructions. For Reasoning (Counterargument):

The model wasn't explicitly trained on this specific cipher but used logical deduction to solve it. Reasoning doesn't necessitate physical interaction or creating entirely new knowledge domains but involves applying existing knowledge to new problems. Artificial Intelligence Perspective:

AI researchers recognize that while LLMs are fundamentally statistical models trained on large datasets, they can exhibit emergent reasoning behaviors. When models like GPT-4 use chain-of-thought prompting to solve problems step by step, they display characteristics of System 2 reasoning.

Final Thoughts:

The model's approach in the cipher example aligns with the AI definition of reasoning. It showcases the ability to:

Analyze and understand new problems. Employ logical methods to reach conclusions. Adapt learned concepts to novel situations. Therefore, in the context of the cipher example and according to AI principles, the model is indeed exhibiting reasoning.

'This paper presents the first comprehensive framework for fully automatic scientific discovery, enabling frontier large language models (LLMs) to perform research independently and communicate their findings.

We introduce The AI Scientist, which generates novel research ideas, writes code, executes experiments, visualizes results, describes its findings by writing a full scientific paper, and then runs a simulated review process for evaluation.'

'The AI Scientist can produce papers that exceed the acceptance threshold at a top machine learning conference as judged by our automated reviewer.'

You're probably right.

I would hope that we eject our ewaste into our star in a sustainable way.

The model says I'm being too speculative about our future and that we should tackle ewaste better right now. The model is usually right.

Appreciate the comment. I guess every little bit helps. Maybe I'm becoming a bit of a hater. The last project I commented on in this way had much less utility.

This is such a tired trope that should have died in the early 2010s.

Those who don't like their direction should just switch to a different OS.

Cloud integration brings features which customers want. Customers still can't even be trusted to back up their own data. Customers don't want to upgrade their OS because they don't fully value the huge number of advancements that come with major revisions.

I got something like 7-10 licenses for windows 7 via a student program when I was in undergrad. Literally haven't paid for a single windows license in over a decade because the upgrades are free and transferable to new hardware in many cases.

This is not the outcome one would expect if msft was anti-user. Think about it.

This is a fair critism. However, I don't think it matters much, to the overall argument he makes.

Why?

We don't need AGI to see massive geopolitical disruption. We are already seeing this. The US has put up a GPU wall around China. That is evidence enough.

The capability we have already is enough to greatly upset the balance of power in a variety of spheres... Both sides lag in implementation. The capability is alresdy there. Capability will grow. AGI is not relevant to the concern for security. We've past that point already. The labs are a key NAT security asset. They just are privately owned/operated... For now. This is the way of things. History shows this.

Yeah I stopped reading about halfway through.

For crying out loud hn... Out outputs is ultimately a series of 1 and/or 0....

That doesn't mean we have to carry that through to every analysis and comment.

Things are not so binary y'all. Regular life operates in the quantum or non discrete rules. Pls think on it.

Fascinating developments.

While a year ago China's willingness to come to the table would have been surprising to me... Now... Less surprising.

The US look poised for some very serious capability growth over the next few years. Limits make a lot of sense for the Chinese in this environment. Some of these advancements could greatly erode what strengths they have managed to consolidate.

It is baffling where the polarization comes in.

The idea that we argue about safety... Seems reasonable to me.

The argument about its usefulness or capability at all? I dunno... That slider bar sure is in a wierd spot... I feel ya.