bulder

I'd be dismayed to find that the "hacker spirit" is in any way compatible with venture capital raiding of anything not nailed down, in the pursuit of hoarding it in private data vaults only to be used for developing a product that removes all attribution and is jealously protected by corporate lawyers.

GitHub Copilot for VS Code by default configures "Plan" mode to disable everything except reading, asking the user questions, and writing into the memory scratchpad. Claude Code's tool system feels quite rudimentary in comparison, but that's what you get I guess when you're only working with models you're going to finetune on being able to handle specifically your own tools anyway.

But there isn't any extra information in AI posters. It's necessarily either something that can already be conveyed in writing (that is after all, what they're prompted in), or something the AI pulled in based off of the text unintentionally, at which point no actual information is being conveyed by the added visuals.

OpenAI's Codex has a "ask user question" tool, which helpfully has a hard coded 60 second inactivity timer that passes a "user did not pick, just pick yourself" message to the model.

...but that's not what the models are. You can interrogate them on the rules of chess, and they'll (statistically likely) give you a decent breakdown of the rules. Evidently the rules are in their training material, they just fail to apply them in the manner of an intelligent system for some reason or another.

The traffic has to yield to pedestrians when entering and exiting a roundabout, period.

Automated building tracing is okay sometimes, but actively harmful other times. I know that at least in my region, Rapid footprints are all meters offset from the real location, because when they were building their dataset they weren't checking the satellite imagery offset.

In general it's probably better to see if you can find an official map, and check if its license terms are compatible[1] with OSM.

[1] https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/

I think, with all due respect, that your supervisor would be correct to think of that email as an insult to both them and to theoretical mathematicians as a field.

While I fully agree, we shouldn't anthropomorphize the models, it's also silly to pretend that "develop biases" is understood as implying anthropomorphic features of the thing being discussed. Organizations and abstract bodies develop biases, even datasets are often said to have "developed biases".

Yup. Before they just blackholed Finnish IP ranges instead, accessing the site from one would serve a fake Cloudflare page with a reCAPTCHA challenge and the DDoS script. (The tell of it being fake is y'know, that Cloudflare doesn't use reCAPTCHA)

I can only guess the goal was to keep users on that page longer to keep sending off more spam requests.

That's great, how does that absolve the archive.today maintainer's bad faith activities, including creating a country-wall?

DDoSing a website, modifying their archives surreptitiously to serve their own wants (which was what tipped Wikipedia towards banning their use), running weird sockpuppet campaigns to build dependence on them, and fucking with Cloudflare's DNS resolution to prevent anti-tracking measures from working.

Oh and even if I wanted to ignore all of this, I couldn't use them anyways because they blackholed the majority of Finnish IP ranges after the DDoS incident to I guess punish the entire country for the targeted blogger being born here.

Plenty of these abusive scrapers are utilizing retail residential proxies, which will be applying forced rotations to avoid "burning" their compromised and or otherwise surreptitiously utilized IP address.

I personally doubt they gave the models specific instructions calling out named websites to communicate over, but I do agree that OpenAI is likely training their cybersecurity-enabled models in ways that encourages abusive and amoral behavior. Either through negligence or by finding it gives them better results.

Or just, stop any containers it deployed.

Not to mention that "deploy itself" is a very ambiguous thing for it to actually do. Would a model be trained to write about the weights file being "itself"? Would it have the necessary information to find its own weights, or the necessary access to copy them?

You're arguing for calling it AGI, but again, this tread was about calling it ASI.

Since they're statistical likelihood machines, I'd guess that the order of operations is

* Need persistent scratch space

* Look for public writeable websites

* Needs to be low-traffic so the notes don't drown in noise

* Pick a "random" wiki name to search for

  \* A majority will end up outputting the same "random" one since they're working on very similar tasks and seeded with very similar context

* Find a whole mess of notes running on the same task

I don't think that's a pattern indicative of a cat and mouse game per se, that'd indicate active evasion on the models' part.

It's more clear that they just lack so many forms of prudence when it comes to security that they'll catch and stop a training run spamming a website, and either redeploy a run with identical faulty sandboxing, or not stop ones still running.

This subthread was about the root list of claims being "more like ASI instead of AGI." By definition being superhuman means doing things no human can.

A more important point as to why it doesn't matter if "reading the AI's 'thoughts'" helps to interpret it: As we saw in the HuggingFace incident, nobody at OpenAI is reading the thoughts anyways. No amount of traceability in the output helps if nobody bothers to trace it.

The model doesn't "know" how to generate tokens any more than it knows how to stop generating tokens. The sampler simply stops pulling values when it outputs a "stop token", which is a token the same way every other token is.

That is to say, it stops when it's statistically the most likely to.

The bar must be underground if things humans do all the time are considered "superintelligence"

The regulations are for OpenAI the corporate entity, not the technology. Doesn't matter how cutting edge you are if you don't behave responsibly.

I know that there are at least a few content farms out there that specifically pump out "faceless video" to be resold, ie. those "hands in frame only" videos. The idea being that you can then put on some AI generated voiceover over them.

Presumably they've configured it to use a higher difficulty challenge due to high rates of scraping on their bugtracker

Conventionally we would call that alignment process parenting

Patching over the architectural nightmares LLMs pour out is I think the opposite of artisan programming.

That's why I said intent rather than letter. That said if we allow for arbitrary lengths of time, one could argue that sending back a reply indicating that the source will be delivered in 50-75 years is equally compliant.

I definitely remember seeing a post by a Chromium maintainer talking about starting development on a proof of concept implementation and surveying for semantics.

A reasonable interpretation would be that they had a previous process that eliminated delivery latency and required no manual manpower for responding, so changing it has been done to induce artificial friction, against the intent of the license.

Not that the intent of a license can be enforced.