Ydarbleoj

Socially mediated and socially constructed do not mean the same thing and the distinction matters, especially from someone claiming to be read as authoritative on this matter.

You're definitely not following my logic because of your false equivalence WRT private companies and private prisons.

If you think prisons should have profit motives where growth only comes from continually seeking punitive policies to imprison people then I don't know what to tell you. The extrapolation isn't that hard and I don't see anything good coming from it. Weird takes.

That's a great what if despite what we currently know of these prisons and what we know of private companies seeking profit at the expense of whatever you're stating.

There's a country in the 30's that used misinformation to sell what you're suggesting and they, at one point, had a thriving prison system in less than a decade.

Don't be so polyannish.

You think this admin is like others?

The mere existence of private prisons in the US is immoral. To argue otherwise is a failure to extrapolate what that means at every level of gov and society. Maybe this isn't uniquely the GOP but private prisons have been some of the largest donors to the GOP since Covid.

Maybe it's the companies that flank the US president at events in an attempt to gain favor? Or the companies that own private prisons that lobby for immoral policies on policing?

>Our legal system isn’t ready for machines that act on their own.

Like a Tesla in FSD mode, the driver is and should always be held responsible for the car's actions.

The companies the push code that breaks the law should, as well, always be held responsible.

This really isn't that hard we just have to wade through all the pollyannas that make this challenging.

> reified intelligence on a chip almost too cheap to meter, available to everyone across the world - not just rich West.

I think this is quite the pollyannaish perspective and very much inline with those that think if you can take, then take and only apologize when caught.

After reading the article, the title doesn't seem all that off and definitely nothing to be a pedant about.

I was lumping Anthropic in there with OpenAI but I didn't know about Alibaba (or Google and Deepseek for that matter).

So it would appear poor security for one.

I wonder why we don't hear of other frontier labs experiencing these "break outs".

Is it that they're orchestrated? Do these labs lack fundamental safety guidelines in their sandboxes as opposed to their peers? Is it another version of hype-filled fear mongering?

Maybe LLM companies need regulation but it's becoming obvious that those screaming the loudest for it are the only ones I see deserving of it.

I get it. I do. I just believe we live in a world where our corporate leaders speak out of both sides of their mouths. And typically, people who get to these positions are not the Jacob Coxon's of the world.

That is to say, I've been places where I tried really hard within teams to change certain things that I thought were broken only to find out that what the leadership said and how they acted were divorced from my and many others experiences. And so I did leave in those instances (and please read this not as I didn't get my way but total dysfunction behind beautiful facades).

So, I do think if he really felt as he felt he'd do something different than ultimately yelling "somebody stop me!".

Because I find the cognitive dissonance of saying it's dangerous while flying as fast as possible to an IPO too much to take. I just don't understand how others parse this differently.

The more he talks the less seriously I take him.

He talks too much and as a result it's looked like pre-IPO hype and disingenuous because if he believed what he says then he'd stop.

Now, someone is going to say but the investors and obligation to be first; and I would say exactly. The cynicism is well deserved and I think people are tired of what could be suggested is your group think take often called the status quo.

Totally, but I didn't say political means everything I said everything is political, which means anything a human does to any extent, tacitly or otherwise, is embedded in a power structure.

What you're suggesting is that it's a spectrum and I agree. I don't know what to tell you.

Just to be clear, everything is political - whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

Whoa. That's not at all what they said and shows you lack intellectual honesty.

Sounds less stressful.

That's what a lot of American companies say.

Wait until you hear about Amazon's practices.

The one that requires full-attention from the driver? No.

Sorry, but the notion that creative writing and robotaxi's exist as proof of anything is like saying my child can drive and write; and while true, the measure of that ability is not at the level of the best humans. It's average at best.

Delivers an ungodly amount of space pollution that's for sure.

It’s not about what they say but what they do and right now no frontier AI company deserves anything but skepticism based on how they act verse what they say.

This is a reminder based on believing what these companies say.

I’ve lived long enough to know what they say and what they do are often quite different; and it is not our job to trust but to verify.

Yes.

We should absolutely be able to see inside of our prisons. What are they hiding (My expectation is that we treat people humanely. You can tell a lot about a society by how they treat their prisoners)?

I think this is a good point. My only push back would be that when people say they have ADHD, in my experience, they're speaking about inattention (and yes, it's one of the big factors).

And while I don't love that aspect in me and often eat cold toast as result, I find that to be the least of what I struggle with (hitting every wall while walking from point A to B or constantly counting / tapping on my fingers or pulling the skin off my fingers or the anxiety or the hyper focus (love it too!) to where I lose hours upon hours...).

All this to say, I'm never offended when people use it but typically it's rooted in a narrow understanding of something that's used as a pejorative. I think there's research that by age 12 kids with ADHD have heard 20,000 more negative or corrective comments than there peers.

I mean, I can read quite a bit but if my agent / harness is producing monographs the fix has nothing to do with my ADHD. So to me, this repo seems lame.

> At 11:58 P.M. EDT on Monday, Buckmaster posted his and Alpöge’s results, along with the statement laying out his account of events. According to the statement, he does not know how the OpenAI team so quickly reconstructed the details of its approach. Buckmaster wrote that he asked Bubeck if the OpenAI LLM was given access to his personal prompts to the company’s model Codex, which he and Alpöge were using throughout the process and thought were private. Bubeck told him no but wouldn’t answer whether the model’s training involved user data, which might have included Buckmaster and Alpöge’s private prompts, Buckmaster alleged.

Second to the achievement, I think this is the big takeaway and should be approached is if they did, in fact, use private prompts for training.