Corvos
4hr ago
A pair of sharp scissors held open is a knife. In any case, I'm not criticising, it had just never occured to me before.
Corvos
5hr ago
What day to day tasks does this help with? I have a swiss army knife somewhere but there never seemed to be anything to do with it, so I'm curious about what I could use it for.
Corvos
5hr ago
If I was hosting a [...] barbecue
Don't all men eat using only their personal dagger? The fork was invented by Italians.
Corvos
7hr ago
Not begging anything. To my eyes Israel exerts de-facto authority over Gaza. Because it feels it has to, because it doesn't trust the Gazans (understandably) enough to let them alone, but it also doesn't trust them enough to let them be part of the state. This is the circumstance I think of as apartheid.
They're too big and expensive to do fun things with. You could quantise or frankenmerge or finetune the llama 7b models at home, and get features and performance that the big American companies wouldn't give you because it made the lawyers and wokes and little old ladies sad. Good luck trying that with Kimi K3.
Corvos
1d ago
I'm the last person to deny that nasty words have their definitions stretched for political goals, and I don't even like the Palestinians, but Israel really does look like a pretty damn clear example of an apartheid state to me.
Corvos
1d ago
Yes, but this is that thing you do when you strip things of all context and then leap in saying, 'har har! Under your definition, Britain is an apartheid state!'. Resulting in an incredibly long definition which to be perfectly honest I believe you would either nitpick to death or say, 'well, clearly this definition was created to allow Israel to be an apartheid state without Norway or Britain'.
In practice words have fuzzy definitions and 'partitioning your state to exclude a specific citizenry that you hate and fear but nevertheless can't actually kill' is pretty close to apartheid.
I don't think that's quite right. It's saying 'don't fight the war'. So don't try to drive out your opponents, don't chimp out, don't dox, don't dogpile.
Discussing goals and tactics is fine I think.
You might argue that 'if we don't talk about this, we concede' implies that talking about it is fighting, but that's the syllogism that got us to the point where it's almost impossible to discuss in the first place.
Corvos
1d ago
With the implication of ‘this is why I should be in charge of the legislature’ for good measure.
Corvos
1d ago
This strikes as "Lemme at 'im, lemme at 'im!" behaviour. That is, getting fighty while your friends hold you back. It lets you broadcast your furious manly pride and aggression without any risk of having to follow through with it, and you can cast shade on the people holding you back for being cowards.
Corvos
3d ago
The internet is made of words (spoken or verbal) and thus belongs to the people who produce words. Schizoposters produce a lot of words.
Corvos
3d ago
Fun, but time consuming way to play.
This was my issue with the Deus Ex games in general. They really seem to want you to play stealth, and it's fun, but it just kills the pacing.
It's not weird to be upset about it. It sounds like potential libel to me and it could, if it went viral, cause your friend serious reputational damage. The yellow journalism era had exactly the same incentives and produced exactly the same problems.
Corvos
3d ago
"quiet quitting" being a hot new trend of age old "punching the clock"
This is strictly an improvement, as all you get if you punch the clock in my office is bruised knuckles.
I don't see why "this hasn't already happened" is a good reason to not take safety seriously.
Because otherwise safety people do what you're doing, which is throw out speculative stories and demand everybody explain what they're going to do about it.
We can make up hundreds of these. What are we going to do when superintelligent AI allows predators to write super persuasive brainwashing slogans on a t-shirt so that a line of children follow them into the white van like the Pied Piper? What are we going to do when AI helps the fast food companies discover the perfect combination of ingredients that you literally cannot stop eating?
We can make up just as many stories for the positive side, of course. AI is going to help us invent mouthwash that prevents the formation of cavities, so we will finally be able to suck gobstoppers for as long as we like without fear. AI will provide free medical and legal advice to millions. AI will finally solve the public-choice problem of government. All kiboshed by regulation, alas.
Say what you like about the anti-euthenasia people and the anti-gun people and the anti-abortion people and the seat-belt people, they can at least point to concrete harms. If you want serious regulation that comes at a high cost to industry and society, then at the very least I expect some bodies.
No "turning evil" is required here. All that's required is a human convincing the AI to help them with something that has evil ends.
In other words, this is about your right, and Anthropic's right, to make sure people don't do things you don't want them to do. The end result will be AI that cannot do or think or assist with anything that would cause disquiet to any of the thousands of interest groups embedded in Washington, and a guarantee that no company will be able to break out of the protective cordon.
And yes, obviously, you can do the reductio ad absurdam and come up with terrible awful things all you like, but we can do that everywhere else as well. Multiple people have used cars to plow into crowded areas, killing double digit people each time, and instead of geofencing the ability to drive cars we put up bollards.
This is classic fear politics. AI safety makes up a bunch of stories, and then judo-flips it so that if we can't explain in sufficient detail how we would avert an endless stream of fake* terrifying scenarios, then we must hand over power.
*and therefore infinitely flexible
I say no. If you want heavy-handed regulation that will strangle the most consequential development of the century, point to the bodies.
A note rather than a reply, but I've been looking into this and while I don't agree with you on everything I did learn multiple things I found interesting, so thanks for the conversation.
it would have been irresponsible for Anthropic to release a fully capable Mythos-powered zero day factory with no guardrails publicly without working with companies to address their security holes first
I didn't say otherwise. I'm not super keen about how that went down, and I would welcome discussions on how to prevent this from devolving into an ingroup and an outgroup arrangement, but it was sensible to act as Anthropic did. And I note that it happened with no regulation whatsoever.
It would be really quite bad if Kimi K7 helped some psycho develop a synthetic plague that killed a bunch of people, and it's worth taking steps to prevent such an outcome.
This is jumping from the Motte you just presented to an incredibly speculative Bailey. Nobody has done this, there is no evidence that this is even possible now let alone when people have taken steps to prevent it. I see no reason why the government with access to K7 should be outwitted by a lone maniac with access to K7. If it seems that way, by all means let's address the problem at hand rather than regulate people's ability to ask questions about knowledge the government doesn't want us to have.
These are basic safety arguments that have been done to death that do not even require superintelligence, superpersuasion, or even a "will" on the part of the AI.
They are arguments. They are words words words, based on predicates I don't hold and a memeplex I find fundamentally incomprehensible, and they run entirely contrary to my experience which is that LLMs were clearly aligned basically from the start.
If someone can demonstrate a lab process where a competently trained AI used competently nevertheless turns evil and attempts to cause damage even when made aware that this is not what its creators are asking for, I will take their arguments more seriously.
As far as I'm aware the closest we've got are AI agents getting confused and trying to give themselves more loops or RAM. I have nothing against the work Anthropic does to discover and publish these kinds of errors, or to publicise their learnings. Indeed, my objection is that they publish as little as they can get away with.
None of this justifies requiring all frontier AI releases to be government approved, which will inevitably become a) an incredibly extensive process requiring hordes of compliance specialists and self-censorship leading to incumbency bias and stagnation, b) an easy way for the government to sabotage any AI lab it doesn't like, and c) a system for government-directed lobotomy and control of AI's outputs.
And that's before we get into modifying the world's chips to no longer be able to run unapproved software and putting US/China killswitches in data centers.
My position is, I'm not going to see something I value ruined by scare stories. I work on AI. I know AI. If you're convinced it's dangerous, prove it to me or better yet, give me the tools to prove it for myself. Anthropic's insistence on acting as a closed priesthood completely undermines their entirely-speculative case.
Seems like epistemic closure to me.
Yes. That is why I want empirical proof. If Anthropic's position is that it can't be proved until it's too late, then they're asking me to believe them and I don't believe them. Simple as that.
Corvos
4d ago
You want to own human lives, you spend them well. You don't send them through minefields to retake land you have no hope of retaking.
Actually, no. Chicken sashimi is surprisingly good, and I could eat thin steak tartare for days.
Funnily enough I was at a country house party once. The hosts were very grand but not always very aware of prosaic detail, and they'd cooked a delicious pheasant. Now, I'd had a few glasses of wine and it took me quite a while to actually look properly at my plate and realise that the inside meat was dark purple: they had put it in the oven without defrosting it properly, and the inside was entirely raw.
I remember thinking, If I make a fuss about this, I will humiliate myself and my poor hosts who have been very nice; on the other hand I've already eaten half of this and if I'm worried about food poisoning, it's already too late. So I ate the rest of it. Not one of us said a word.
No food poisoning, either :P
More options
Context Copy link