d0mine

Current inequality is greater, not talking what AI wealth distribution will look like.

Have you ever asked a long distance runner how are they feeling during a run?

It is literally true when you are going in circles ;)

It is not clear whether models will be both capable enough and cost effective enough but not as capable to wipe us all out. The outcome is a tiny sliver of possible futures and even then likely short-lived.

Current capabilities are not there. You need software engineers to keep it going. And even then as intoxicating as it might be to be able to bring to life all the side projects you often had no energy/skill to finish, today it is still may be cost / “cognitive load” -effective to buy off the shelf apps that somebody else has to maintain (even if they are not as personal / less customized for your use-case).

Are you including cyber-testing by UK AI Safety Institute in this list?

Sure, the models are capable (for some test tasks, though they are not omnipotent yet) but does it mean the actual OAI sandbox is adequate? Could have a competent engineer done better and made the escape less likely?

It may be even simpler: plain markdown files that explain architecture including C4 diagrams generated from text using plantuml (automated via invoke/fabric/whatever). Plantuml includes C4 in stdlib https://github.com/plantuml-stdlib/C4-PlantUML

"can I do something [at all]" vs "how [easy] can I do something"

It is not about age. It is just a way to tie accounts to a real life identity.

It won't be surprising if the requirement comes from some alphabet agency.

Middle may be wrong (it is a marketing trick to add 3rd outragesly expensive option, to make 2nd option look reasonable). The correct answer is “it depends” (even how long you should spend on choosing may depend on context too).

For example, write in whatever language you know best, then translate to a more appropriate language using LLMs once the desired behavior can be checked automatically. It is a tactic that works in some cases.

“Strong appearing individuals“ just expose what is already there.

That is why Voldemort always comes back in real life

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIv1f2AwFCI

At the moment, the hurdle is [missing] context [aka shared model/understanding of the business, common sense].

Though it is not hard to imagine that any and all communications being recorded for AI consumption in the future.

The Next one is the relative lack of prompt feedback (expect the blowup in finite time like Navier-Stokes ;) [there is not much feedback even for humans at middle management positions].

The cost [tokens] might become prohibitive unless LLMs improve further [not a guarantee].

Is the implication that those who impose these sanctions can MITM anybody in the world except for countries under sanctions (which have to use their own root CAs)?

I've only heard of OpenAI and Anthropic agents hacking during training. Are open weights model not smart enough to hack Hugging Face to copy solutions? (doubtful)

MAD is a belief system. It doesn't matter whether AI can effectively stop the retaliation, it is enough that people making the decisions believed that it can (are we there already?).

It is not “worst-case” (as the post demonstrates, you can get worse results by using specifically crafted data that exploits hash collisions). There are algorithms that can get you O(logN) instead of O(N) even on such data.

Note: weather observations being truly random data has been proved just recently (Navier-Stokes equations)

> we use “malicious” to describe code that goes out of its way to trick or mislead the user, exploit bugs or compromise the system. This includes un-reviewed AI-generated proofs and programs.

It is interesting that AI-generated proofs are described as malicious by Lean docs unless reviewed.

> “The ultimate decision as to whether a publication qualifies as a “Qualifying Outlet” shall reside in the sole and unfettered discretion of CMI.”

Could you point to a resource that explains (concisely if possible) why twitter shouldn’t be used unlike other social media platforms?

Is it because it is controlled now by a different branch of the powers that be? (different branch — same tree).

no, unless you think [evil] witches are real.

If they were real then muddying the water by implicating as much people as possible benefits witches because it creates the impression witches are not that bad, not so evil, no need to burn each and everyone of them at the stake to immediately.

To be clear: the implied answer is "pedophiles". Pedophiles benefit the most from "being mentioned" == pedophile

Because obviously, there are many people mentioned in different contexts and it is unclear how many of them are pedophiles.

There are people who may disagree, but I'm from the generation who considers molesting children a serious crime--much much more serious than being mentioned in some email.

Ask yourself why nobody is being prosecuted.

Ask yourself who benefits from equating "being mentioned in a file" and "having evidence this person is a pedophile"

Humans are still useful.

MTurk likely can't fight with cheaters now. It would be useful to give some tasks to humans, if there were an economical way to ensure humans will do them.

4 is the min of the range (stop (1 here) is never included (by definition. Ask Dijkstra why))

Does it make sense running 1-bit models for agentic tasks?

The point of courses like "Nand to Tetris" is not to become CPU designer. It is not useless just because you can't build a chip factory.

Watching Karpathy's "Zero to Hero" won't make you AI specialist. It will improve your understanding of the basics.

LLMs can write TLA+ models just fine. It can help even with small mobile apps. Surprisingly, simple TLA models were able to find design/workflow issues almost in every of a few vibe-coded apps I've tried on vacation.

it reminds me that making a ring is not rocket science https://youtube.com/shorts/NPKOGqXKLq4

Wait until it becomes popular.

"Садись, два» is more idiomatic