GymInMeCricket

Even as an ML researcher, the behavior of tech companies increasingly disgusts me. How people ever believe companies have the best interests of humanity at heart is beyond me.

From the original social media post:

Many people think that the words “Artificial Intelligence” are inaccurate, and very ineloquent, relative to AI, or Artificial Intelligence. A far more elegant and accurate description of this new phenomena would be Superior Intelligence (SI) or, Extreme Intelligence (EI) or, Supreme Intelligence (SI). This is a Poll, and I would appreciate everybody voting! Which is the best name for this ever growing “Revolution?” President DONALD J. TRUMP

I agree; at the very least there needs to be serious penalties in place for breaches, with rewards paid to whistleblowers to encourage reporting. As far as I have seen, there has been no significant negative effects so far, but I can definitely imagine how this could go catastrophically wrong with very minor changes in the protocol. E.g. some cryptography-breaking benchmark leads to the agents hacking the NSA with inter-agent comments/instructions posted on public forums that anyone can read.

Your statement is irrelevant to the fact that, on the executive branch's insistence, NSF has distributed far fewer funds this year (approximately 30%) than were required by Congress. We know and have repeatedly stated that the amount of money that Congress ALLOCATED TO the NSF has not changed. It is the amount of money DISTRIBUTED BY NSF that has been restricted. I don't know why you insist that allocations and disperment are the same thing. Repetition does not make it so. If you wish to present convincing evidence for your position, you must provide evidence that DISPERSEMENTS FROM the NSF have not changed. Otherwise, I see no point in continuing this circular conversation.

Your pasted quote explicitly says that Congress did not allow the cuts. I do not know what point you are trying to make.

For good measure, I pasted it into Gemini as you requested, and this is what it said:

> Me: Does this say that the president is allowed to prevent distribution of funds from NSF without congressional approval: https://www.aip.org/fyi/trump-proposes-deep-research-cuts-ne...

>

> Gemini: No, it does not. [etc.]

Thank you. Then he and I are probably in agreement, and my choice of words was incorrect. Illegal searches/stalking is a subset of the harmful actions I had in mind.

By "over-policing" I meant something like "fishing for a crime."

Appologies, but I don't see how this supports your point. It actually seems to support the claim that the reduction in NSF awards is illegal because it states that the request was explicitly rejected by Congress

My understanding is that congress chooses how much money should be distributed to each organization (e.g. NSF) each year, and preventing that money from being distributed is not legal. If I understand correctly, your table is of appropriation from Congress, not distribution[1]. I am open to being corrected if I am wrong.

[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-02574-6

Appologies, but I don't know what you mean.

In my opinion, there was never any doubt that there would be over-policing. Rather, people doubt that they would belong to the over-policed parties. I hear similar arguments about NSF funding from my relatives: "yes, funding has been illegally cut, but it will not be cut for the people I know, only for the 'bad' researchers."

I have a few questions:

1. I see there is a Chrome extension, but I have not used Chrome since their adblocker blocker announcement. Is a Firefox extension planned?

2. What is the business model? Is this an open beta of a paid product? If this is not a product, will the code be released at some point?

3. It would be helpful to be able to filter papers by institution or author. Is this planned or out of scope?