jstanley

Yes it does. rdrand32()%65535 was my first attempt, and generated zeroes at about the expected rate, that's why I initially erroneously thought my CPU did not have this problem.

Can you clarify what you mean by "it is vastly more likely someone will actually try that key"?

I'm guessing you don't think there are people calling rdrand in a loop and throwing away the output with high probability except when it is 0, but I can't see how else you imagine people would be vastly more likely to use the output when it is 0?

This is not the first RNG bug on Zen 2, I recall after I first got mine that some application or other would quit immediately at startup because rdrand always returned -1, i.e. all 1s. It was fixed with a microcode update.

Do we now learn that they fixed "always generate all 1s" with "never generate all 0s"??

EDIT: I've been unable to reproduce the problem on my CPU, FWIW. It's a Ryzen 5 3600.

EDIT2: OK, update, I can reproduce it with rdrand16, rdrand32 is fine but rdrand16 can never generate all 0s. So my CPU does have this problem!

Here was me thinking it just didn't do anything at all.

Anything you generate with ChatGPT has SynthID on it.

The closest thing I found to "defeating" SynthID was to put in a normal photograph and ask ChatGPT to make some utterly trivial edit, and then the output got flagged with SynthID even though it is essentially an unmodified photograph.

Are you saying that RightSignature puts the checksum information inside the document and therefore destroys the checksum? What is the thinking behind that?

If you think SynthID-Image can be easily defeated by adding entropy I invite you to give it a try.

I spent half a day messing around with it and I was very impressed by how robust it is. I couldn't get OpenAI to stop detecting their own SynthID without completely trashing the image.

That wasn't my reading of the comment, but I guess it's possible that that is what was intended.

To my mind, "sidestepping the question of consciousness" and "sidestepping any notion of consciousness" mean very different things.

I don't think the described cipher has enough degrees of freedom for that to be possible.

> while completely sidestepping any notion of consciousness/self awareness.

How are you so sure about this?

You can't see what the internal experience of an LLM is like any better than you can see the internal experience of another person.

Possibly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotor_ship ?

Asking an LLM to play chess by writing algebraic notation is like asking a human to play chess blindfolded.

Yes some people can do it but most people can't even if they're unusually intelligent.

You really need to be giving the LLM a board representation.

EDIT: I see that they actually were giving the LLMs a board representation and they still played badly. Fair enough then.

If the thing that makes it interesting is that the solution is unknown to everyone, then would you also oppose humans publishing solutions? Once the solution is published the mystery is gone.

Also, just because someone else knows something shouldn't make you any less curious about it yourself. If you don't know it then you don't know it, regardless of whether somebody else does. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/L22jhyY9ocXQNLqyE/science-as...

Right. The existence of jet planes doesn't invalidate Olympics. Why would the existence of machine solutions invalidate human puzzle solving?

The Insert key toggles insert mode.

> some complied with greater reluctance than others.

Is always true, unless they somehow all comply with precisely equal reluctance.

You only notice the ones that aren't safe.

How would you know if someone bypassed the restrictions if they were riding it safely?

> We obviously have much better ways of doing such things today

Do we?

I mean you can skip imagemagick and use HTML5 canvas, but otherwise I think I wouldn't change a thing.

We have much more complicated ways of doing such things today, for sure.

Index funds.

So everyone else's keys are missing materially all of the time?

But you can't experience the qualia of tokens coming in and LLMs can.

They don't only reference a frozen training reality, they also reference the live rollout. Otherwise they wouldn't work at all.

They do continuously update from experience, but that only lasts for as long as the current rollout lasts.

Their training data isn't qualia itself, but neither is your training data.

Qualia are something you get on the inside in response to inputs. I don't see why LLMs can't have them. I'm not saying they do, but I don't think your argument proves that they don't.

It's fine, of course, but unwillingness to view with the general public should not constitute grounds for a private viewing.

I don't like the general public either, can I have a private viewing?

> are they really stressed or just excited and in an unfamiliar environment, meeting lots of new people, etc etc

Being in an unfamiliar environment and meeting lots of new people is stressful. They can be genuinely stressed. But that's not necessarily a bad thing.

In your other comment you state that you've taken 3 different types of combat training (concealed carry, martial arts, army basic). I am curious if you did all this training after the incident with the 3 young men or before?

Do you also define yourself according to the worst thing you've ever done?

I think broadly the same thing, I just think that people who say they don't have aphantasia are sloppy with wording. When you "see" something in your mind's "eye", that's a different type of experience to seeing something with your real eyes.

If it weren't that way then beginner artists would not have such trouble drawing accurate proportions from memory because they would already "see" the correct proportions.

You know or you merely speculate?

The extension can declare which websites it can access, but the other commenter was looking for the ability for the user to declare which websites it can access.