LordDragonfang

Okay, thank you for posting that. When I commented, the only things I saw in this thread were people saying it would be open "because the previous ones were". My point was that that was insufficient without Black Forest Labs giving a more direct answer.

There's been an increasing trend of previously-open-weight models going closed-source once they reach a certain size (and size is proportional to capital investment). That the latest release will be open-weight is not necessarily a given just because the previous one was.

$200/$400, actually. The $40/$80 licence tier only comes with a year of updates, which should be a complete non-starter in today's security landscape.

> maybe two models should be developed and trained in conjunction that talk to each other, each with different functions and roles, because brains work better this way.

I mean, is that not essentially what a Mixture of Experts model is?

> I wonder if intuition is just a secondary neural net which is currently being added to the agents as we speak

Arguably, intuition is primary neural net, the only thing an LLM has without CoT, it just is spiky so humans only notice where it's below-average and just dismiss the rest as normal. Of course it's going to lag behind in some areas compared to others.

> Perhaps you need to look up what "real" actually means.

On the contrary; I think. Nearly every definition disagrees with the claims you're making. It's not a mere synonym of "concrete" or antonym of "abstract".

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/real

And regardless, the usage here was clearly in the context of GP's (false) dichotomy between "real" or "false concept", so obviously the definition you're trying to prescribe doesn't apply.

"A social construct" and "not real" are not the same thing. Money, laws, countries, gender, even civilization itself are all social constructs. More importantly, all forms of ownership are social constructs, and that doesn't provide any information as to whether we should respect them or not.

And by constructing that false dichotomy, you're failing to see the actual truth, which is that Intellectual Property is just a legal construct to turn ideas into Capital, with the goal of incentivizing its creation.

Nothing more and nothing less, and all of the normal debates about what should remain Capital and what should be The Commons apply.

> I know that not everyone has morality and ethics, but I didn't realize it was this bad.

This is a very disrespectful way to make a point about acting with integrity.

You should consider that maybe your views on what makes something ethical or moral are not universal -- and that coming to a discussion with the assumption that your position is the only valid one is not conducive to convincing others who disagree with you.

1 and 2 have had simple, proof-of-concept answers for more than a decade now:

> 1. Email sets of DNA strings to one or more online laboratories which offer DNA synthesis, peptide sequencing, and FedEx delivery. (Many labs currently offer this service, and some boast of 72-hour turnaround times.)

> 2. Find at least one human connected to the Internet who can be paid, blackmailed, or fooled by the right background story, into receiving FedExed vials and mixing them in a specified environment.

(https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/pxGYZs2zHJNHvWY5b/request-fo...)

Those routes haven't gotten any more complicated for an AI to use in the intervening time.

And that's just one set of ideas. You can read the comments for dozens more creative ideas, and likely for responses to every objection you can think of. The key is that AI is getting better and better at problem solving, so anything a human can come up with in a few minutes is likely already within its reach.

---

> How is this materially different from today?

Because the should-be-uncontroversial assumption is that AI is going to keep getting better at every step of the process, and be able to do it faster and more at scale. Currently it might struggle, but with a thousand agents? It's already able to find novel math results and cybersecurity flaws. It would be incredibly naive to believe "social engineering" is somehow a unique and unsolvable problem for a sufficiently advanced AI.

>And I say "talked," because the jagoffs at Microsoft REMOVED Remote Assistance from every version of Windows used by people who are likely to need it.

https://rustdesk.com/

But also, you'll notice that giant banner on the linked page. It's because the people "most likely to need it" are also those most likely to fall victim to the increasing number of remote assistance scams.

It feels weird that everyone is talking like Google has banned adblocking in Chrome, when there's dozens of adblockers still in the extension store, including an updated version of uBO that works 90% the same.

Ad-blocking is a safety issue, but luckily you can still block them just fine.[1]

The only thing this heavily neuters is tracking blocking, but no one admits that because they know, deep down, that ~0% of the non-tech crowd cares, so it's not as good at stirring up outrage as being dishonest is.

[1] If anything gorhill is to blame for the safety issue, since he refused to update his extension in-place, so any distant relatives will have the adblockers you installed for them removed, instead of updating to the fully functional Mv3 version.

> This dynamic can be particularly challenging for some patients. “Lack of motivation and lack of follow-through are the most common symptoms of depression on the planet,” Marcucci-Morris said. “We wouldn’t tell a paraplegic, ‘Hey, walk down the hall in order to get your wheelchair.’”

This was something I really struggled with getting an ADHD diagnosis as adult. I needed an incredible amount of executive function (dozens of phone calls, navigating the mire of health insurance to figure out who I was allowed to go to, who would take me, being bounced around) to be allowed medication to treat my executive dysfunction. I recall wondering how someone less functional than I was was ever expected to get help.

Not sure that assertion holds; looking into the Amazon thing, it looks like the mechanism there was that it automated the "safe" parts of the job (notably walking), and greatly increased the rates at which workers were expected to perform the parts likely to result in injury/RSI, with less downtime between. That's not a flattering comparison to be making for any health system.

> People saying that "The MechaHitler App" is a cesspool are the out of touch ones?

No, I chose my words carefully. Thinking it suddenly became a cesspool makes you out of touch. Twitter, like all big social media, was a cesspool before Musk bought it, and that hasn't meaningfully changed since. And also like all big social media, it's basically fine and not a cesspool if you put a little effort into curating it. Twitter is actually better than some of the others, even, in my experience (though maybe I've just been more diligent in my curation of it).

There was a minor inflection point where a lot of very politically vocal people left, but for the majority, especially institutions, not much changed.

(And yeah, I'm not denying that Elon puts his hand on the scales of the algorithm. Some of what it pushes is disgusting and obnoxious. But I see disgusting/obnoxious stuff on other platforms too -- and that includes bluesky/mastodon)

Strictly speaking, it was, since we never actually declared war on Iraq. Which only makes the whole tragedy a more egregious violation.

GP already explicitly called it bipartisan, and it was bipartisan well before Obama (though if we're pointing fingers at a modern president for accelerating the abuse of "national security", it really should be Dubya).

> Politics doesn't work if a significant part of the leadership is constantly acting in bad faith, and behaving essentially sociopathically.

Not to be too contrarian, but I'm certain there are many people who would claim that's the only way it has ever worked (poorly)

Considering the number of users, even official government departments, it still has, you would have to be very myopic and have very few interests for this to be true. The fact you're posting on Hacker News at all invalidates it; a huge portion of the type of people who hit the front page here are on Twitter.

> are there any respectable originations that still wish to be associated with the cesspool Xitter has become?

Yes, that was the biggest topic under discussion in the threads about the Nitter C&D. And most of sports is apparently still on there, to the point I hear people talking about how they only use it for sports news.

Honestly, the belief that Twitter has suddenly become a cesspool and everyone left is a (vocal) minority view, and it's only the liberal tech/terminally online left echo chamber chamber that thinks that.

He coined the term in the mid-80s. There's a whole lot of continuity between the Republicans of the mid-80s and the ones of today, even if some of the ones of the past might be horrified with what's become of their legacy.

While I think it's good to make a point that the republican party was very different in the early decades of the previous century, I'm not sure being born in the 1930 is the right cutoff for that. Mitch McConnell, one of the major faces of the current Republican party, was born only a decade later.

Real life events are rarely monocausal; it's not one "rather than" the other, instead it's almost certainly a combination of both (and other factors besides). Especially with (as several other commenters who pointed out) how rare a lack of indictment is.

"Inadvertent" from the perspective of the humans directing them. The intent behind the felony comes from the LLM agent itself. (No, I'm not interested in arguing with someone for the umpteenth time that LLMs can't have intent or agency)

I mean. The fact that GP couldn't find it again is an indication that they did keep it out, or at least kick it out (and possibly uninstalled it from any users that got scammed by that ad).

Google's anti-sideloading stance is scummy for a lot of reasons, but this in particular is a bad example.

Specifically, it's magic of the "summoning and contracting with demons/otherworldly beings" variety.

> Also, I listed the view points I had to show that it seems other more reasonable first assumptions don’t seem likely

No, if you review what you wrote, you did not. You stated your belief that this looks good for them, and aligns with their strategy, and then concluded it must mean this was done on purpose. Cui bono is not evidence, it identifies suspects. It is not evidence of malice over incompetence.

Evidence is taking a look at possibilities, and going "how would I expect the world to look if this were hypothesis true, before I learned these additional facts?", comparing it to what actual happened, and then you must divide it by how likely you think the hypothesis is, before said evidence.

Sam Altman intentionally positioning his company to commit a felony and be investigated by the authorities for days, just for clout, is an extraordinary claim, and therefore requires extraordinary evidence.

Also, importantly, even if we think e.g. Sam Altman would do this, a corporation is not a person, it's operated by individuals with differing goals. I doubt Sam Altman personally is organizing every test of the model, and there is no reason to believe this specific test would be organized by him, as a prior, rather than by a normal security researcher, who presumably is less motivated by the company's bottom line.

Based on the comment section here, it seems like the opposite; the majority of the people here need a reminder that companies aren't actually genies that can only tell falsehoods, where you can only understand what they are saying by correctly guessing the conspiracy underneath.

Taking nothing at face value gives you just as much of a distorted view of reality as taking everything at face value.

I'm disappointed that this is the level of discourse happening here, when the default assumption is such conspiratorial thinking. I expect that from tiktok and low-information social media, not here.

When your default explanation for everything is "companies are lying about everything", you end up just as incorrect as believing they're always telling the truth.

It's not outlandish that models have these capabilities, the number of CVEs I see as a sysadmin has exploded and we're seeing novel math discoveries nearly every week now. OpenAI does not need to pretend to commit a felony to demonstrate it, that's pure conspiratorial thinking.

Genuine question, was this comment written without opening the link? Because I can't see how you've come to this conclusion unless you're skipping several steps. The ads in TFA still look like ads to me.