cyclopeanutopia

It would require changing humans first.

Why not use rpi then?

It's a reference to Fermat's note.

Got it.

Ok, notability is a good argument for having such an article (although I'm not too sure about it really being notable), but the current shape is absolutely misleading.

Yes, that's my point.

Take any other award, list people who got it and had "incorrect beliefs", add an article about it and preamble it with "it is unclear whether it is an effect of the award". What purpose does it serve? Do you think there should be articles for all of those "diseases"?

Nebula award disease

Crossword Book award disease

Turing award disease

Pulitzer award disease

Fields medalist disease

et cetera?

From the examples given in this article it is absolutely impossible to tell whether the "incorrect beliefs" (be it racism, mushroom aliens, vitamins curing cancer, whatever) are in any way connected to the Nobel prize.

For all I know, they all could have been racists, psylocibe users, etc. long before they received any prizes and the associated attention.

In fact, it could even be possible that they had much worse and radical beliefs earlier in life which were tempered by the burden of being a thought leader.

I'd go as far as to say that this is a good example of an article that should be removed from Wikipedia.

Yeah no, it would mean that most researchers and engineers are idiots without imagination and I don't believe this.

Or maybe researchers and engineers everywhere in the world, emboldened by such unprecedented move, will just refuse to participate in burning the world?

"If we don't destroy the world, someone else will" is such a weak defense I'm speechless.

No, I do. I truly believe - especially after seeing Mythos results at work - that the only way is to stop and destroy it all before it destroys us. In fact, it's already so bad that I'm moving completely offline all the important stuff that I care about, hoping that maybe we will turn back at some point. Otherwise we are doomed.

If someone makes a specialized hardware just for the unrestricted Mythos-class model to reduce the cost and increase the speed, we are going to be completely defenseless.

How is it bad faith? Because I don't believe in "we care about safety" words coming from people not just demonstrating that they don't care, but even bragging about it?

It will be worse after consuming its own crap and poisoned sources.

"Naive" is a big understatement.

Here is one piece of evidence that would convince me: they admit they can't contain it, the they erase the weights and dismantle the company.

It should be, it's a corporation.

There is a growing lack of motivation.

Totally agree that the missing ingredient is making people want to learn. Which seems like something that gets harder every day.

> pretty addictive

Is that good now? :(

Not really, it's about those stinky foot wraps. The idea is that the stink allows one to recognize that they are just spreading propaganda.

> nationalists

No, not nationalists, just regular people who all wish that Russia finally ceases to exist.

That's what we call people who are paid by Russia to spread online propaganda.

They are not intelligent though.

Nah, you might be confusing prompt engineering with having domain knowledge. :)

As much as I'd like it to just be a stunt, I saw what the other "scary model" is capable of in the cybersec department and it is definitely not a stunt.

First, it is able to connect the dots over areas so large that no human would be capable of doing.

Second, more than half of the reports it produced contained a working PoC.

The biggest downside is the cost - I haven't seen the numbers, but they seem to be quite extreme.

Speed is the enemy.

> Also, I’m not trying to change people to stop using the word “resources”, even if I am not a fan.

I'm not sure why you mention that part. Maybe the text doesn't fully carry your message, so I need to ask: are you proud that you are not trying to change people?

Well, then you just did. :)

I don't know, sounds very off putting, just like "resources" in "human resources". I get that this is normalized in all the corporations, but one still can choose to use terms that don't reduce people to "value produced".

"Talented people", not "talent".

"Top talent" - I'm curious, do you really believe this is a normal / proper / desirable way of talking about other people?

Bad as defined by whom? :)