Tenoke

A great example of how current alignment is imperfect and bound to miss random behaviors nobody is trying to get.

This is cute now, and a huge problem when future AI does everything and is responsible for problems it isn't even directly optimized for. Who knows what quirks would arise then.

I think LeCun has been so consistently wrong and boneheaded for basically all of the AI boom, that this is much, much more likely to be bad than good for Europe. Probably one of the worst people to give that much money to that can even raise it in the field.

Nobody out of people remotely worth listening to. There's always people deeply wrong about things but over 70 years at this point is a pretty insane position unless you have a great reason like expecting Taiwan to get bombed tomorrow and slow down progress.

Yes, this sounds made-up/not Ryanair. I've used them for over a decade, paid with many different cards and have never encountered this with them (nor anywhere ever really).

How is it internal or speculative? Chatgpt is the 5th most poplar website. Gemini is 30th but they have increasing demand and a ton of it isn't on the gemini main site. And that isn't their only external demand of coruse.

>rational adult of sound mind”, and “rational” there easily disqualifies every human being on the planet, with all our evolved biases, heuristics, and common predictable misjudgments.

If only they had someone deeply familiar with the field who had been there.

Exactly this tho with more than just 2 categories. You find more than ever optimized for the 60s category, that's true, and you do get longform silos - but those include one silo of channels that clock around 10m, as well as another in the hour+ podcasts case.

The main new takeaway is that the shortform category is bigger and more important than previously imagined but hardly the sole winner.

>OpenAI is losing a brutal amount of money, possibly on every API request you make to them as they might be offering those at a loss (some sort of "platform play", as business dudes might call it, assuming they'll be able to lock in as many API consumers as possible before becoming profitable).

I believe if you take out training costs they aren't losing money on every call on its own, though depends on which model we are talking about. Do you have a source/estimate?

For better or worse, OpenAI removing the capped structure and turning the nonprofit from AGI considerations to just philanthropy feels like the shedding of the last remnants of sanctity.

>Complaint chat models will be trained to start with "Certainly!

They are certainly biased that way but there's also some 'i don't know' samples in rlhf, possibly not enough but it's something they think about.

At any rate, Gemini 2.5pro passes this just fine

>Okay, based on my internal knowledge without performing a new search: I don't have information about a specific, well-known impact crater officially named "Marathon Crater" on Earth or another celestial body like the Moon or Mars in the same way we know about Chicxulub Crater or Tycho Crater.

>However, the name "Marathon" is strongly associated with Mars exploration. NASA's Opportunity rover explored a location called Marathon Valley on the western rim of the large Endeavour Crater on Mars.

I'm not. Again, you might be processing the variable for logging or saving or passing elsewhere as well or many other reasons unrelated to sanitization.

I'm not sure why you think it's harder to use them without sanitization - there is nothing inherent about checking the value in it, it's just a nice use.

You might have implemented the t-string to save the value or log it better or something and not even have thought to check or escape anything and definitely not everything (just how people forget to do that elsewhere).

Again, just because a function accepts a t string it doesn't mean there's sanitization going on by default.

The sanitization. Just using a t-string in your old db.execute doesn't imply anything safer is going on than before.

No, just `db.execute(f"QUERY WHERE name = {db.safe(name)}")`

And you add the safety inside db.safe explicitly instead of implicitly in db.execute.

If you want to be fancy you can also assign name to db.foos inside db.safe to use it later (even in execute).

The article talked about it but the example here just assumes they'll be there.

db.safe same as the new db.execute with safety checks in it you create for the t-string but yes I can see some benefits (though I'm still not a fan for my own codebases so far) with using the values further or more complex cases than this.

Then the useful part is the extra execute function you have to write (it's not just a substitute like in the comment) and an extra function can confirm the safety of a value going into a f-string just as well.

I get the general case, but even then it seems like an implicit anti-pattern over doing db.execute(f"QUERY WHERE name = {safe(name)}")

I don't see what it adds over f-string in that example?

Having errors is not the user error - Google will also return you bad results but I'd still consider it user error if someone can't avoid the bad results well enough to find some use for it.

But it is able to tell if a statement is true or false, as in it can predict whether it is true or false with much above 50% accuracy.

>The AI revolution has mostly been a hardware revolution.

It's certainly important but this reads as overly simplistic to me. All the hardware we have today won't make an SVM or a random forest scale the way transformers do.

> It just so happens that sometimes that non-deterministic text aligns with reality, but you don’t really know when and neither does the model.

This is overly simplistic and demonstratably false - there's plenty of scenarios where a model will sell something false on purpose (e.g. when joking) and will tell you it was false with high probability correctly whether it was false or not after that.

However you want to frame it - there's clearly a more accurate than chance evaluation of truthfulness.

Much, much less was being poured into AI until it started to have some returns.

I can relate and it is something I'm thinking about as I have a post I'd like to try reposting without coming off as spammy. In this case, the repost was indeed worth it as far as I can tell.

I get it but for what is worth, the accepted behavior here is that you can repost eventually but you should wait significantly longer than a day before doing so.

> Are reposts ok?

>If a story has not had significant attention in the last year or so, a small number of reposts is ok. Otherwise we bury reposts as duplicates.

0. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html

I can empathize. Part of what we require seems to be better detection and signaling of which accounts are most and least likely to be human but I'm not sure if we'll get that in the biggest forums.

LLMs can practically pass the Turing test in this context so on one hand, this should become worse, but on the other hand we are not that far from where the LLM comments are about as worth as the random real ones anyway. And if you want more than this level, you have to curate better.

Partially inspired by AI 2027, I've put to paper a day in one of the more optimistic scenarios I envision which are realistic to me.

..The first person listed is ex-OpenAI.

GPT-2 for example came out in 2019. ChatGPT wasn't the start of GPT.