sega_sai

"for me, at least, the process of getting somewhere is more interesting then the end product." -- that's perfectly fine for a hobby, but not for an engineer job.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50296486 it was discussed here

For a scientist this is a somewhat obvious point. The purpose of figures in the paper is to make certain specific points. You don't make a figure just to have it (if it is a good paper). In the same time, adjusting the plots to make specific points doesn't mean making them misleading (which by done by some, by playing with axis ranges, or coloring of points or smoothing).

Sorry, but no. If that was a statement was coming from an actual Open AI I would welcome it, but instead it comes from a pre-IPO "Open"AI, after it siphoned as much information as they possibly could.

The way I think about this -- AI makes all of us managers. We need to figure out when we are convinced by what is brought in front of us, when to ask to do more checks/validation, when to fully reject, when to accept. To do this properly we need to have to have enough background knowledge to evaluate the what is AI brings, otherwise otherwise a person in the loop is simply not needed if they only type a prompt and always click yes.

I think people indeed need to constantly practice our low level skills, otherwise they will atrophy.

Cool, I didn't know about it. I guess for big AI companies, it would make sense to keep those private, but for users, it would be a useful resource ( a bit dangerous, but still)

I recently read the article about the state of stackoverflow and thought that that AI agents need their own stackoverflow. This article seems to be a confirmation of this.

I had a Dell latitude E6400 for many years, and it was rock solid for me with zero complaints. After that I had an XPS 9550, and it had a lot of issues over just ~3-4 years: issues with power connector, audio stopping working, touchpad issues, etc. Since then I decided to go back to Thinkpad.

What a strange statement. Quantum mechanics is a physical model of the world. Attention and transformers are not. They can be construed into one in principle, but they are not models of the world themselves.

I think a much more interesting question is: If your LLM hides some sort of message/identifier, and you don't know the encoding, what is the conversion process that you should do that would erase that information. Presumably small perturbations of positions and colours erase a lot of it, but maybe there are encodings that are robust to that...

It is the same starlink that was disabled on request of either WH or Musk to bully Ukraine.

I simply was not convinced there was a tangible benefit over password + 2fa when using a password manager. And the inability to move the passkeys is not acceptable. Similarly the failure modes of the passkeys vs password + 2FA were never clear.

I'd rather wish people put effort into LibreOffice. I'd hoped there would be significant improvements there as there is a huge scope of bug/compatibility fixes. But I guess it is not sexy enough.

So we have a situation when if AI hacks into something, nobody is responsible, but if you say something inappropriate to the AI, then you can be arrested. That is interesting ...

It is nice be a company who can just hack into things and not suffer any consequences.

"In scary headlines like these, technology is the subject, and teens are passive victims." -- I am sorry, but how is this not true, when companies like Meta are in full control of their algorithms, tuning them to maximum addiction.

One can indeed argue what is the best way to deal with the problem of kids and social media, but I think the article is misrepresenting the situation.

In most star photospheres the role of radiation pressure is negligible. They are supported by the pressure gradients. The exception is very hot stars.

Unless they use the time they previously spent making a sign into making a better coffee.

I think old Android phones not supported by their makers are so problematic in the LLM era. I would think that even before LLMs the 3 letter agencies had exploits for those, but now one should assume common criminals will... I am happy that the pixel phone I got has 7 year of support, but it is clear that Apple is in general is much better in this than all the Android providers (including google)

I think if there was a financial penalty of say 1% of profit/income for each "incident" where something was hacked/exploited, then the companies would be much more willing to think about safety.

While some of the text sounds sensible to me, i.e. some sort of external oversight + reporting of incidents, much of the rest seems focusing on limiting China and their open models as they are clearly approaching the abilities of Anthropic's models.

This really leaves a bitter taste.... "On Tuesday, September 1, we heard rumors that two Millennium Prize problems had been resolved. Inspired by these rumors and by the step change in performance of our internal model, we launched an effort to evaluate it on all open Millennium Prize problems and a few other high-impact problems."

IPO+rumour driven research.

I appreciate the achievement, but it doesn't feel right.

The PR mentions not just California but other states and countries, so I dont think California's exemption alone changes the situation

Sorry, but that is not common around the world. Most countries do not have such a system. I.e. none of the EU/UK/Australia countries have that.

"Covariates included in this study were study center, child sex (female, male), birth order, mother’s ethnicity, parental highest education level and TV viewing time (hours/day), maternal age at delivery (in years), household monthly income at recruitment, and maternal sensitivity from a 15-min observation of mother–child interactions at 6 months. "

Unfortunately there are more and more cases where "The computer says no" and then there is no human to talk to, and you are bounced back from one automated system to another...

I had recently a case where my title (Mr) ended up as my middle name in the system of the operating airline (it was perfectly correct in the system of the airline that I booked the ticket through). Two hours of talking to those two airlines did not help me. I had to buy another ticket...

I think this starts to remind me the movie Brazil...

I don't think there is value per se, but it is just natural (at least in the environment I am in). I.e. when we discuss the analysis/code/ideas from one LLM or another, we describe it Claude/Gemini/Codex/etc did that and it comes like a person.

I don't find this take useful. We have little understanding of what conscience is, and how human train of thought really works. The modern LLMs IMO resemble more and more Chinese room problem. Maybe we don't like the mechanistic linear-algebra-based steps involved in the production of the output, but the end result is closer and closer to people's output. IMO this is very natural to start anthropomorphizing that.

If some text is AI written as a response to a much shorter prompt, then the prompt and/or sources used to make the text should be published instead (or at the very least together with the text).

The video in the post is very worth watching and is indeed scary. It is certainly true that it is in OpenAI's interest to publicize this, but I don't think the whole thing is invented. And seeing all this it is particularly scary if we think what will happen in organizations like NSA or similar in other countries. Presumably they happily adopt these techniques. And if you imagine a truly rogue state doing this, I can see an unimaginable damage happening very rapidly.