_vertigo

No true sandbox..!

This is one of the most exhausting (and frankly, exhausted) recurring arguments that comes up over and over again on HN.

Some bit of open source software does something bad or unwanted which causes people point out that it shouldn't do that bad thing. In this case, not even "the authors of this software should be held liable for the software doing the bad thing", just, "Hey, the right thing to do would be to update the software to not do the bad thing."

Why does this always lead a zillion people to come out of the woodwork to point at licenses and warnings or whatever? Like, yes, there's a warning. Your software having a warning doesn't mean people can't criticize you and your software for doing bad thing. Your software license does not give you immunity from criticism or from people saying you should change your software.

No, you don't have to change the software. Yes, other people are within their rights to fork the software themselves. But they can also point out that they told you that your software was doing the bad thing and you didn't fix it or change it, and that as a result they don't like you or your software or both — whatever. Nothing at all wrong with that.

Is there specific legal guidance about whether doing this in a training run is against the law? It seems like your link is for commercial / for-hire investigative work.

Clearly not Claude-speak, see the rest of the message. "Rollout artifact" just means "an artifact of how we rolled this change out" which maybe isn't proper English but the message was obviously not written by Claude. Upgrade your Claudish detection

Try reading the article before commenting

> Make it so the model can't misbehave.

How do you figure? I haven't met anyone who thinks that's possible. It seems clear to me that it is not possible.

That's a good yardstick. Would a reasonable human driver call (or want to call) the cops? If yes, it's reasonable for Waymo to do the same

No, it's like making a snow report for a handful of skiing areas in a small geographical area (e.g. Sierras) and then contextualizing it against the snow report for all skiing areas in the broader region (e.g. Western US).

What is your point? It’s not that complicated. Obvious slop is obvious. Maybe there are some humans out there who sound like Claude but I’m not going to force myself through 900 slop blog posts on the off chance that one of them might actually be written by a human.

Maybe some people stop reading LLM slop purely because it violates their moral principles or whatever but most people bail out because slop is mentally painful to read. If you are a human and you write like today’s AI find a different writing style, not because reads like AI, but because it reads like shit.

When I clicked “see more reviews” while signed out it prompted me to sign in

YES. A thousand times yes. It's garbage.

This post does not read like LLM output though

The resulting image holds zero power compared to a realistic deepfake. A drawing or a crude photoshop is obviously artificial.

A deepfake can be used to blackmail, ruin someone’s reputation, or deeply unsettle them. The power of an artificial image along those dimensions scales exactly with how convincing it is.

An app that can generate convincing deepfakes quickly, cheaply, and easily is essentially a weapon.

Is this a real take? You don’t see a difference between an app that allows anyone to transform a picture of someone into a convincing nude within seconds with no skill boundary, and MS paint?

Do you think Google should get government sign-off on every change to its routing algorithm?

..you good bro? Anyway, things are improving but that doesn’t mean people can’t have a say in what tradeoffs they are willing to accept in return for progress.

A lot of progress has externalities and the benefits and downsides of progress are rarely equally distributed.

everyone’s seen ads before, mind if I put a giant ad in the sky for everyone to look at?

Not really seeing what this has to do with Meta or data centers. The bacteria was traced back to a contractor, not really clear to me what the link between bacteria and data centers is.

If the story was like, “water was polluted with waste chemicals produced during data center construction,” I think I could see more of a connection.

Great, a totally vibe-coded website with a slop “analysis” about AI touting a meaningless ratio with zero context

Rock climbing ethics is more complicated and dramatic than that.

Applying this logic about easements doesn’t really capture the whole picture, because you’re considering people only, not considering the mountain. I think some people who support chopping those bolts would argue that this is like restoring the Mona Lisa after some random guy painted their own painting over it. Yes, removing that guy’s crappy painting is technically a destructive act and removes the world’s ability to see that painting. But net-net, things have improved, even though there will always be some signs of the damage done by a fool.

iPhone 13. Did you change the slider at the bottom?

I could see it being good if it helps you estimate crimes committed by citizens. If you know where the gaps in your knowledge/data are, you can attempt to account for them. And that’s better than nothing.

I think misleading information is obviously bad, incomplete information is not necessarily misleading though.

On the other hand, it might be better to remove incomplete information if it is actively being used to mislead people.

Interesting — so in your opinion every country must build out datacenters or be left behind?

I think that’s fine, but 1) that mentality leaves you extremely vulnerable to being disrupted by LLMs and 2) IMO, if you are solving the same problems every day it means you are not making progress on solving the root causes of those problems. What you are describing is toil, not knowledge work

The article makes practical suggestions; you do not. This is just hand-wringing, abdication. Practically speaking this mentality will get us nowhere.

I see this dilemma with LLMs all of the time.

Should you use the LLM to do the thing directly, or use the LLM to implement a tool that does the thing?

I tend to reach for the latter, it’s easier to reason about.

What are some other better ways to normalize?

It’s not morally wrong per-se but just because you are working with your government does not mean what you’re doing is necessarily moral

That’s insane. There should be a big team of people at AMD whose whole job is just to dogfood their stuff for training like this. Speaking of which, Amazon is in the same boat, I’m constantly surprised that Amazon is not treating improving Inferentia/Trainium software as an uber-priority. (I work at Amazon)

It’s just an externality of online advertising