bossyTeacher

Because its CEO is known as the sponsor of the Orebro party?

1.5k comments discussion for context: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48717469

Without knowing the physical book equivalents, these numbers mean very little.

This is a variant of: if [tool] isn't giving you good results, then it's your fault.

For some values of [tool], this is right. Question, is it true for this particular value?

> They might argue we do not support everything they say.

This was literally Mullvad's response to one of their CEO being the main founder of a party with some peculiar views.

> we just don't have the money!

You don't have ANY money? Plenty of students would do a great job for a little money and a professional reference. Now you just helped the workforce, helped the local economy and cost you little.

Then, you use this: https://duckduckgo.com/

Actually, use it now.

> None of their decisions make any sense,

Of course, it does. Google is no longer afraid to spit on open source. People happy to use Chromium features better remember this. You are renting everything and your landlord will soon come demanding it back.

TLDR: be rich and young.

No one is stopping you from typing code in your favourite editor.

What was the talk about?

Didn't he get kicked out of the company he founded? Deep Mind does not have a CEO anymore

> They are simply looking to steer AI policy discussions. It's basically an in-house think tank.

For a guy who spent his life imagining and realising dreams in video games and cognitive abilities in artificial neural networks, it has to be very soul destroying for Demis to spend his time doing something as frivolous as this.

> They are talking about slowing down the public facing AI development.

I assume there already existed advanced models frontier labs only made available for national security. We just weren't told. I am guessing the announcement is a way to avoid jeopardising their IPO, while reducing their workload.

Maybe. Anyway, let us not forget that both of these actions are unethical.

> they can definitely ship and run to thousands of real customers

Each of those customers, who also have access to LLMs and can therefore bypass his LLM built service by making their own LLM built service. Cameras in phones didn't turn everyone into a professional photographer, it gave everyone the ability to take pics, as badly composited as they are, they fulfill their purpose. On the few life occasions where a professional is needed, you don't go for a smartphone-based photographer, you go for an old school professional photographer. I think software will be the same. These 50 year olds won't be selling to anyone. And if they are, it won't be for long.

Can't help but feel that this related to the common observation that frontier model advancements have noticeably slowed down compared to the previous years. That this is a regulatory way to give themselves more time to manouvre themselves out of their current slowing advancement predicament.

Is this the end of the 2022-2023 LLM race? A truce of sorts? Makes you wonder whether non-Western parties will agree with this.

That is why you wash your food before eating it same as you do with legumes and rice (that likely also have had pesticide on them).

"Making the world a better place." the Silicon Valley mantra that every dev out there and in here drank like a drug. People like Graham arguably have played a part in the transformation mentioned in the article. And many of us here have been directly or indirectly participants too.

Trust and OpenAI never go together in the same sentence. The answer is always no.

Did you look him up?

No. The whole issue is that the seller needs to maintain an online service to allow you access to the movies. This online service costs money so over time is likely not worth the cost. This plus the online service provider undergoing changes (bankruptcy, acquisition, mergers, etc) or they themselves losing rights to the movies. Seems to me that rental or purchases are still unbeatable. The alternative is streaming but the downside is higher costs over time and worse quality movies.

I meant to say that most researchers have engaged in the unethical actions that Meta has.

It's not that Meta is making it harder to report them but the fact that reporting them does not meaningfully disincentivise Meta from carrying on with their unethical behaviour (i.e. it is not an effective deterrent).

> so is every security researcher in the world if they want to be

Most security researchers lack Meta's history:

- Testing emotional manipulation features on thousands of users non-consensually

- Adding spyware on underage users

- Intercept a rival app's traffic

- Allowing harm to teen mental health

And most importantly, most security researchers lack the money and power to fend off the legal consequences of these acts.

> WhatsApp is end-to-end encrypted,

- Meta data of your messages is not encrypted so meta can make a graph of who you talk to and when

- backups are not encrypted by default so plaintext of your private chats can be obtained

- even if you enable encryption for backups all it takes is for the other person in your private convo (or a person in a group chat) to not enable it for your messages to be available in plaintext

>inferior

Way to reduce a multi dimensional concept into a single scalar value. Care to explain what exactly make it inferior? Try using more than one word if you can.

"it already completely outperforms humans in many cases in many areas" and "is prone to draw obviously wrong conclusions from thin air." seem contradictory imo. If the performance is not reliable, how can you confidently state that? Also, "ASI" is "Artificial Super Intelligence". Let's not do an Altman and start redefining terms, please.

'AGI' here defined as whatever Altman wants 'AGI' to be. This has always been the problem with terms such as "AGI" and "AI". They don't mean anything in particular. Depending on how you twist it, we first had "AI in the 80s, in the late 00s, in the early 20s, this month or never.

HN users are at the same time the brightest and the most clueless. Why on earth do you think they will agree to something that they will perceive as damaging to them in the present or in a possible future?

> how is an AI going to affect anything in the real world?

In 2026? Money. By paying enough, any human will do your bidding. And besides this, there are a lot of critical systems connected to the internet. Control over those gives you leverage over those systems. It's like wealth, the more you have, the easier it is to gain more.