34,226 karma · joined October 26, 2007
Only speaking for myself, not my employer.
Big businesses really do not like to talk about their products being harmful or dangerous, and there is ample evidence to that. Danger only sells in artisanal quantities to niche audiences.
Climate change is just a scam by the fossil fuel industry to hype up their market cap. Look at the power of co2, and the damage it can do without even trying.
Medicines being pulled during trials or after public availability for side effects are just Big Pharma making their products more desirable via scarcity.
Boeing did really well out of the 737 max. Airlines were just lining up to buy an airplane that could give the passengers an experience they would remember for the rest of their life. That's why they absolutely made clear that it was their product that was dangerous, rather than blaming operator error.
They did not task the agents with hacking into systems. Not monitoring for that was a mistake, but maybe a forgivable one the first time around. The subsequent coverups are inexcusable.
> This is why it smells like marketing
It doesn't. "Our product commits felonies" is not marketing. If something is marketing, you don't engage in repeated coverups of the true extent. If something is good news, you don't release it on a Friday evening (in this case) or wait for 3rd parties to find and publicize the evidence (the past cases).
A year ago I would have described that group as AI skeptics or AI deniers depending on how charitable I felt on any given sany. At this point AI truthers seems more appropriate.
https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-5#intelli...
It is most of the pareto frontier.
No? That quote is clearly saying the opposite of your summary.
This is like a web page asking for your email password to check password strength, promising that it won't leave your browser. Maybe it doesn't right now, but who knows about tomorrow.
The obvious outcome of this plan would be frontier models not being released at all to public It'd be an amazingly bad outcome. Models accessible to the public would stagnate (no capital, no access to frontier model tokens to distill from), while internal models would keep improving at their previous pace, use them in-house, and eventually eat the whole economy.
But he is wrong on the facts: these incidents were not merely the models already being in a infosec context and escalating beyond the intended parameters. They happened also with no kind of security elicitation. So the task was something like searching the internet for economic statistics, not to hack into a system.
It seems impossible to believe they didn't know. This must be the same training run the HF incident was about, and this should have lit up like a Christmas tree in the investigation. How many more incidents do they know about and didn't disclose?
That is not your voice. That is the most Opus 5 writing imaginable.
But thanks for at least stating right up front that it was AI-generated slop rather than at the end. (Still flagging it.)
Of course usually hand-picked boards don't go against their benefactor, and they're not keeping their seats.
That they did in this case says something about just how bad the situation must be.
The mortality rate from those diseases was higher than today because the population had no immunity at all, leading to both higher transmission rates and higher mortality rates. This would be true of an engineered virus as well.
And it wasn't just the one virus, it was an entire continent's infectious disease arsenal landing in overlapping waves. Again, something you'd do if you were trying to maximize damage.
So I don't find the bulk of the article about it being impossible for a virus to have this effect all that compelling.
This is a case where we normalisation of deviance has not yet started biting. And as long as the community manages to make it clear what the norms are and enforce them, we can keep it that way.
Now, if 25% of the frontpage was LLM prose at all times, the site is probably unrecoverably dead. Which is why at least I personally flag anything that I think is ai-written and Pangram concurs. (And write a comment to the effect, or upvote an existing one.)
And it doesn't matter if you say that the ideas were your own, and just the prose was LLM. We can't tell what the idea mix was. But we can tell whether you weren't willing to do your own writing. If you want people to put in the time to read your ideas, human writing is the signalling you need pay for.
I don't really understand why they keep doing this. Either run and report everyone at multiple effort levels, or run everyone at only one.
But alsi, token efficiency seems pretty artificial? For example tokenizers are different from model to model. The cost/perf Pareto frontier seems a lot more meaningful (and Astra does very well at that too, just to be clear. It seems to be a great model.)
So, the same as in not actually 0%? Even though the video streams themselves were never used for attacks[0], the contents of the videos frequently have been. The closest analogue to phishing would be the fake "SpaceX launch" streams that were actually a carrier for a crypto scam payload. Or for malware, it doesn't matter that the video itself wasn't malware as long as a video showing a fake Fortnite hack could get the viewer to install malware thinking they got the hack.
AI agents need to be substantially better than humans at this, but they don't need to be perfect.
[0] As far as I know! It seems very hard to smuggle a vuln past the transcoding, but I guess technically possible.
I'm pretty sure your claim about TPUs is similarly exaggerated, only a v1 (barely) qualifies and would have no utility today.
And this really has to be policed. Once some tipping point is reached and too much of the HN homepage is AI slop, the site is dead.
In Google's account system, there's ~nothing you can do with just the username. You need a user id. The only way you can get a user id from a username is to call an RPC service to do the lookup. Doesn't matter whether it's for logging in, finding the account to deliver email to, creating an account, or whatever. Everything goes through that chokepoint. And that RPC server will always normalize the username at lookup time.
(I probably read that normalization code more often than anyone when working at Google on account security stuff, since that was the single place that had any reason to deal with usernames rather than user ids. That code was effectively immutable.)
No, I already explained why rebutting the whole article is impractical. I might have been ok doing so for a single argument just as a demonstration, but your unwillingness to point out the most compelling and impactful argument of this article makes it pretty clear there was no point to it. It was 10k words of padding.
> or his main point about profitability
A message ago the main point was about revenue growth. Now it has shifted to profitability. So, no, I'm not going to waste time rebutting an ill-defined, second-hand, moving target argument either.
> I don’t imagine calling his theory “obviously nonsense” was as far as your reasoning went. Care to expand on it?
It's nonsense by definition? The claim is that companies have too low a revenue to pay for their compute spending commitments, and growing super fast can't fix that problem. Super fast revenue growth is exactly what solves the problem of revenue being too low! It's a very strange thing to assert, but it's what he did assert, and it's the only bit of this article that's even close to what you claim is his main point.
("Oh, but super fast growth can't happen because of blah blah blah as explained in some other article", you'll say. Maybe so. But blah blah blah is not what Zitron wrote in this article, in this one he wrote that revenue growth won't solve the problem of low revenue. Rebutting a 10k word ramble is merely impractical. Rebutting an amorphous blob of 1M contradictory words is impossible, there's always going to be some explanation about how what he really meant is somewhere else.)