pixl97

>LLMs aren't intelligent.

We will never prove LLMs are intelligent, we'll only prove humans are not.

> can't use skills to appear somewhat worldly

Duh, humans don't generally make up things whole cloth either, they access other information, books, tools, sensors, etc.

But I guess if you ignore enough information you can reach any position. It's up to the audience to decide which one of us this applies to.

People want space more than fancy design when it comes at a cost.

Sorry bro, we live in a sci-fi world. I don't know what you think recursive improvement is, but we've been doing it for some time with models making synthetic data models and using it to train the next model. This is being done inside the labs intentionally to avoid as many employees and humans in post training. Works very well for things like math and cyber-sec.

Yep, this is what I moved to.

>I mean open source cryptography did win that battle in the end.

And it took a long time and it's something still at risk.

>Even if it's illegal

If your pissing around with munitions laws you might as well go commit all the felonies cause you'll end up in the same prison.

It's a mix of both.

In places that sucked in 1950 it's way better now.

In places that were good in 1950 it's pretty questionable if it's all that much better.

Birth rate has been going down since like 1910, so there is a lot more than just one thing causing it.

>corporatization is necessary to scale.

Scale is the issue. You get one or two products that monopolize all the thought on issues with many different interpretations leading to monocultures.

If it were just one country you could break large businesses up, but when other nation states allow it, it gets messy to compete in markets.

In the past a small life was your only option.

The modern connected world drags you into a much bigger life than our monkey brains can handle.

And just ignoring shit doesn't fix the problem either.

It's a mess.

>after the first few have been eaten.

This is a bit more difficult in the modern world. If a Chinese CEO, for example, is ruining the world he's going to be very difficult for me to eat.

Also with a modern governments ability to monitor all your actions it may be very difficult to rise up without getting noticed and disappeared almost instantly. "The USSR brought to you by Flock".

I mean, they probably could not have done most of it with open models. Again, a lot of this isn't going to standard software development, at least I would assume but instead to SOTA model development and RSI.

>means you are now paying more for AI than you are employees.

Yea, isn't the entire point of RSI to replace your employees altogether? So you'd spend an infinite amount more on AI than employees in that theoretical.

Like, if you were in an energy generation business spending way more on fuel and capital expenditures is way better than having zillions of employees earning checks , it would be a sign of efficiency.

Corporations are not, nor ever have been a democracy.

What you are asking for is regulations, but as we have seen regulations are pointed at giving the government and corporations more control.

Maybe elect better leaders and not corrupt old businessmen.

And who's going to be providing these models?

How is open source going to work when governments start declaring models as munitions?

There are a lot of unanswered questions the open communities are going to have to deal with.

Because one of those things can be formally verified.

Are you measuring in binary or probability?

In binary any security flaw you've written is a risk the moment it's put to use. So, yea it's a real risk.

In probability measures it's much more difficult to figure out. If your application is something big that everyone uses and has high stakes then the probability is always high even for things that would be pretty hard to trigger. For example who knows how many nation states were sitting on postgres bugs for years? For smaller more private software AI has increased the risk greatly.

Either way it's irrelevant in my eyes. There was always going to be a day of reckoning in the future. Some new technology was always destiny to show up and rain on our lack of security parade.

Simply put, this is where LLMs are good, they don't have an ego.

Security is an onion, it has layers.

But, and it's a big but.

Each layer must be made as security as possible or one flaw can lead to all the layers below it collapsing.

Not reaching system X is just security by obscurity. People have learned the hardware just because something isn't directly connected to the internet that doesn't mean attackers can't reach it. For example clever data poisoning attacks can reach deep into organizations and breach systems you'd never expect.

Advertisement for some product.

Paywalled article.

Also, how do you plan to start over without inviting all the same people problems that existed before?

>the system just stored your card details and the amount.

At least with CC's this would get your account cancelled now.

With LLMs it's almost certain what you want will never happen.

Most people just don't understand how many compute operations occur to train a modern model, and just how infinitesimal any particular data point is. Even worse is when a model generalizes a function. You have to now prove the entire generalization.

Yea, many here keep trying to treat LLMs like software, or at least conventional software. They are not. To me they are at least the modern equivalent to ballistics charts that governments used to keep secret. No one is going to hand them out to their enemy to use against them.

Hell, I expect before long hardware is going to have all kinds of lockdowns occurring.

This works great if you live alone or otherwise are the only one controlling the device.

This may not work so well if you have other people around that may connect the device to the internet, such as kids or family members during a holiday.

Wasn't there some issues with TVs in the past that filled up their drives with this data and would then crash or otherwise not work?

I mean that is true for anyone that sells software. That doesn't mean it's not a hard problem.

Then you misunderstand the resources they put into it at training.

Read about the entire huggingface attack and why it happened.

We live in an adversarial world, it produces survival.

I man who wants to pay for national defense, but when an enemy shows up your glad to have it.

You cannot make defense a binary. We live in an adversarial world. It is required to survive.

I mean, if the attacker could do so remotely, then ya.

SWE's are not a serious bunch when what they do can affect the entire world.

So seatbelts are unproductive?