In this case the HN-edited headline (combined with current events) reads to me like “No, really guys, we do monitor internal coding agents for misalignment.”
Curious indeed that the Yale Babylonian Collection should, out of all the possible options, choose the cooking of Ancient Babylon. I wonder what we should read into this. I have some theories, but it might be dangerous for me even to mention that I have them.
And would that inner circle be essential to an AI the same way it is to a human?
Also, if you had to pick a year for when we see the first AI-controlled company with at least $100M in assets under its control, what date would you pick?
Probably the first time I've read a headline of some kind where good news followed something like "Due to legal advice". I hope the best for any service using Nitter, because the split between X and Bluesky is becoming another red vs. blue making life difficult for everyone else.
You missed a critical detail. They couldn't defend themselves with closed source American models so they had to investigate with Chinese models that had less restrictions. Great optics for hosting open source models!
my usual reply is: "what the hell is that supposed to mean?" it replies "in plain english ...." "and what does that mean?" then finally it decides to tell me what's going on plus "one thing worth noting ..."
So far as I'm concerned, 2030 is much too short a timeline.
It's not physically impossible, it's just that atoms are harder to get right than bits are, so an artificial (as opposed whatever an artificial disease counts as) von Neumann self replicator just seems unlikely to me in only 3-4 years.
But it's not physically impossible, we know this because every living cell is a von Neumann self replicator. So, if AI eventually gets to the point of knowing how to do that (which includes "humans solve it and write it down somewhere the AI can read"), all it takes is one idiot in charge (or one idiot with a jailbreak) giving a command that requires this as an intermediary step.
"Paperclip optimiser" isn't a story about AI that just like paperclips that much, it's a story about some human or humans who instruct their AI to make them "as many paperclips as possible" without understanding the consequences of their instruction.
> In a world where allegations are disconnected from reality, we can only expect repression to be increasingly disproportionate.
At the very beginning of his first mandate, when he lied about something as trivial as the size of the crowd during his inauguration, and kept to his lies despite absolute evidence to the contrary, never showing any hesitation, second thoughts, or remorse, Trump showed everyone the way ahead.
Do not look at facts. Decide what you want to be true, and act like it is true. Do this every day of every year. In the beginning, people will object; do not get into a debate with them, rather continue making up lies, bigger ones.
I remember seeing videos of a tsunami for the first time. I imagined a huge wave that destroyed everything. It was nothing like that. It started slowly. The water level rose, a few waves went over a wall and onto streets, But the water kept coming, and coming, destroying everything that stood in its path, and in a matter of minutes it was the ocean where before there was a city.
Host the infra in countries unfriendly to the US and its legal framework apparatus. Continually package the archive as torrents for distribution globally.
The recipe is also similar to Hamedh [0], a delicacy in Baghdadi Jewish households. The only major difference is the addition of tomatoes thanks to the Columbian Exchange, and rice - which would have not been cultivated or trade in West Asia yet.
On that note, in Arabic, Farsi, and Hindustani the word for Tomato is essentially shared (tumatar/tamatimu)
But anyhow, a lot of home cooking and traditional meals actually have a pretty long history.
New post by @nand2mario. This is the continuation of his work in his z486 FPGA core ([1]), now adding the implementation of the original Voodoo Graphics GPU. In addition to the linked blog post, it is also published a video ([2]), and a SD image for testing ([3]) with the Xilinx KV260 dev kit, as this time the FPGA used in the MiSTer FPGA project is not enough for fitting the CPU core and the GPU.
With AI, we give it the ability to do things. As we can give it this ability, we are responsible for what it does with that ability. LLMs are predictive models, and while we can expect things to go right, we know that things can also go wrong. As such, it is our responsibility to limit or sanitize their output. If you are the one giving unrestricted and unsanitized tool access to a large language model, then you are the one who is responsible for the consequences of that access - good or bad.
> AI companies is still legally liable for anything their models do when they operate them.
I admire your optimism. But until we see these companies prosecuted for the crimes they have committed out in the open (like massive copyright improvement), I'm not going to hold my breath that they will ever be held to account for anything they do.
I actually think a goal of the current crop of OpenAI posts is expressely to reset the spectrum by normalizing the concept of RSI as something normal and safe to pursue.
The message is running through all of them. It's a mix of marketing and pacifying the intelligentia.
It's timed this way because the term is not yet well known outside the safety debate circles, so they get to frame it now.
Instead of something to fear, it will be accepted as the next step. In approximately two days the groupie crowd will write LinkedIn posts about how Sam is winning because they have the better RSI, and this will become the new standard wisdom.
In a month an AI expert will try to sell you a webinar on how to enable "RSI" in your org and your inbox will ask you if your team is doing the "RSI" yet.
