magicalist

> Eh, I hope Apple continues to provide this and it forces the needed discussion about how two-party consent requirements are nonsensical

Really disagree on this, I think all states should be two party consent, personally.

> Why should it be illegal for me to remember exactly a conversation that I participated in, instead of only being allowed to have a vague recollection?

It's not illegal, it's just that the other person has to know that you're doing that and consent to it.

Giving them the chance to walk away or to tell a person and their Meta glasses to fuck off is important.

> No, it’s genuinely impossible to know how much of Buckmaster’s Codex data is in OpenAI’s training set.

Let's check if an OpenAI employee agrees with you: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49614154

Nope. Expensive, yes, impossible, no.

Moreover, you (and Sanders) aren't asking the more fundamental questions (and getting sloppy with your assumptions). - was Buckmaster's account set to prevent conversations from being trained on? This is easily answerable - Was user feedback ever activated on the account? I would bet this is logged, even if not tied to specific data - it's very easy to de-anonymize data in practice. In this case, there will be uncommon phrases used in material not published online until after the training material of their internal model was generated. Do any of these phrases appear in that material?

This is not sharing medical information. Companies publish postmortems relating to specific customers all the time with permission of those customers.

> You seem to think that it is some "gotcha" that OpenAI refuses to make a blanket denial

You're putting incorrect words into my mouth.

What I think is that this whole situation speaks to the character of OpenAI as a participant in the mathematics community, especially when they put no effort into getting to the bottom of this, and, of course, when the extent of them reaching out and collaborating with their peers involves rushed Sunday night video calls and apparent pressure on authorship and credit.

That's their choice, there doesn't appear to be anything illegal here, but they're going to continue to get called out on this kind of nonsense which can ruin the big moment they were clearly hoping to have. Bummer, but there are consequences.

> There is no crease at all!

Like first reply he literally says

> There is sorta one at some slight angles but basically no crease

And someone replied with a picture of it showing the crease.

It's probably fine and you don't notice it during use, but it's not some magic creaseless breakthrough.

> infuriating to see spoiled developed world complaints sometimes

Maybe glance back at your comment history and find you mostly are complaining about very developed world things and investigate why there might be a disconnect between these two aspects of you?

> If an AI can bring a few billion 3rd world people out of misery, I don't think I'm going to shed tears if that means you have to somehow "find meaning" outside of a high paying tech job.

Well, this is begging the question (how awful are people for worrying about the future when the future is going to be so great?), but you're also missing that there's more to humanity than surviving or not, and there always has been. There's no reason to reduce this to a dichotomy.

> You're making a classic a burden-of-proof fallacy

This is incorrect, and you invoke Russell's teapot incorrectly too.

It would only apply if the accusation rested solely on the fact that neither of us have evidence against the accusation.

But that's not the case. First, we know that there could be proof, it's just apparently burdensome and expensive to produce. At that point you're not in fallacy land anymore, you just need a way to balance the cost required of someone to prove the accusations against them false.

Second, we have an arguably plausible mechanism of action that OpenAI does not dispute is possible.

This isn't a legal dispute, so no one is going to force OpenAI to do anything here, but it's not unreasonable (and certainly not fallacious) to suggest that Buckmaster's suggestions are plausible enough it's up to OpenAI to stand behind their denial.

> They aren't arguing against open science, they are trying to educate you on the history of science. It's always been this way.

Always been what way? And how does that contrast to what Tao said (since it was apparently "a misstatement of mathematical history")?

> Also, your third paragraph is highly ironic.

You'll have to be more specific, since I engaged with my parent's argument, while they waved away Tao's quote by suggesting he was wrong because of exactly the kind of events that helped lead to the norms and mores working mathematicians have today.

> Nothing in their comment reads to me as "arguing against"

If competition is somehow the opposite of "centuries of traditions of open science", and "mathematics has always been highly competitive", then open science is neither sufficient or necessary for the future of mathematics. Their clear implication is that we don't need to worry about it, though, because it's always been that way.

> Reads like nothing but historical context

They literally accuse Tao of "a misstatement of mathematical history".

> wound up working in ads or finance

Because there's lots and lots of money in that and there's not in funding pure math. It sounds like your problem is with the people holding the purse strings.

> "Here is a picture of the dish, make it look nicer and use that as a reference"

That's not a function of improvement in models, though, which was the question. You could literally do that today, no need to wait for models in "2-3 years".

> In other words, the "right" people need to solve it: the mathematicians who made it their job and not the people working to push AI models forward?

This is not at all what he said? I'm not sure how you got this from anything he wrote, actually.

Surprised to see someone on HN arguing against open science. Seems like the opposite of the lessons we should learn from Newton and Gauss, actually, hoarding results for decades at the expense of progress.

(the Pythagorean thing isn't really competition either, is ahistorical, and from what we actually do know it's again people hoarding results instead of sharing them).

FWIW, your post comes off as a middlebrow dismissal, surface level and not actually engaging with the substance of the comment. It's also just wrong. You claim "it’s also a misstatement of mathematical history", but don't specify which part. That there's "centuries of traditions of open science"? But your examples are from centuries (and millennia) ago, and there was never any claim that these traditions are universal.

But more fundamentally, competition doesn't mean you can't also have open science. And the very long, damaging events like the Leibniz/Newton feud are exactly what make many mathematicians work to maintain a spirit of collaboration and attribution even when they're competing on approaches.

> Soldiers rarely know the history of war, and war historians are rarely soldiers.

I mean, besides the empty platitude that we have no reason to assume applies here, we can easily search and find Tao commenting on the history and philosophy of mathematics.

This is a really weird subthread.

> Then will we continue to see the slop accusations?

If it doesn't look like the food you're about to purchase, yes? Why is this even a question in this context.

I mean, I actively advocate for better fuel efficiency standards but also haven't entirely eliminated red meat from my diet. If I'm discussing fuel efficiency standards and you call me hypocritical, even if I granted that, it doesn't seem like a useful turn of the conversation for anyone unless it's a rhetorical move to change the topic of conversation?

> If this is true he should release the actual emails

these were statements while on a call, and at least the career comment Bubeck has admitted to while doing damage control ("I deeply apologize for this extremely poor choice of words, it is the opposite of what I was trying to convey. (I should say that I retracted them on the spot by the way.)"[1]).

[1] https://xcancel.com/SebastienBubeck/status/20973794116915163...

> identify any of their de-identified data that came from their usage of ChatGPT

"de-identified" seems more of a euphemism than normal in this context, given the very unique work they were doing.

> Buried under the drama is the fact that OpenAI is claiming that an internal model they’ve been training for less than two weeks is more than twice as capable in mathematics as Astra.

Is this buried under the drama or are the major OpenAI twitter accounts from the people involved in the drama desperately attempting to make this the story after everything else obviously got away from them?

That's playing RuneScape though? Unless the connection is just that these are both RuneScape related?

I believe that means the v8 sandbox, not a renderer sandbox, based on the v8CTF reference.

> “We found the scapegoat, blame that guy!”

Yeah, that's not what an scapegoat is.

> You could script this in with a time database, illustrations, and appropriate harness, tests, and editing passes.

Yes, and I could script a truly marvelous proof if this textarea were but a little larger :)

Hand waving doesn't count for much these days when you could spin these things up quite quickly to prove the point, so the GP's claim seems much stronger than whatever you're not convinced of?

> I suggest you to give a look to the MCP protocol for hardware that is being proposed by Anthropic. The hardware will be the next harness of LLMs, they will be able to operate machines to reinforce their theories.

Yeah, that's called an API. Again.

The actual hard problem that this hand waves is making (and funding the making of) hardware to reliably do the things you need it to do.

> Uhhh… how would literally any finite number of humans actually read and comprehend the log outputs of even a single agent, never mind hundreds or thousands of them interacting with each other over weeks across disparate systems

I mean there's quite a lot of people in the world whose specialty are to dig through logs from "hundreds or thousands" of clients, including intentionally deceptive ones, to spot problems.

The ridiculous thing is to mythologize these pretty standard hacking approaches. It's shocking/amazing/whatever that automated agents were doing this, but they weren't doing it through some inscrutable method beyond human understanding.

> This is the case with all complex system failures. There were always obvious fixes that could’ve prevented it.

From this writeup and the Black Hat talk I'd really disagree. That would be like saying my hospital getting ransomwared because we didn't update our version of MSSQL because no one in particular was in charge of keeping dependencies up to date.

Sure systems are complex, but this is well trodden territory. Agents aren't the first things trying to break in or out of sandboxes, or the first ones to have done it, and based on these reports the reason they were able to work on this for so long was not because of super human intelligence.

> Those turned out to be inadequate against proto-GPT-6 agents

This is nonsense.

Gross negligence in the sandbox and system aside, humans literally noticed the agents in action doing what they should not be able to do in their sandbox and decided not to act upon it. It's difficult to explain that except if safety and security is simply not part of their engineering culture.

> See current situation where the Carpenters' Union in California is pushing hard against an initiative that would make it much easier to build more housing in the state because it would also reduce requirements for union labor

If you're talking about AB 1751 (Missing Middle Townhome Ownership Act) I think you have this exactly backwards.

> Unions are very much an in-group vs out-group phenomenon

As opposed to what? You and the GGP phrase this as a dichotomy, but I'm really curious what the other side of this is, because "not being in a union" doesn't erase your self interest or all the many many groups of people doing the same that don't feel like they're apparently being overly self interested by forming corporations, governments, non-profits, advocacy groups, etc, etc, etc

> Since the current NVL72 are still at the ~15%/yr failure rate it's not clear your new data center is going to have half it's compute in 3 years

This would be a stupidly bad failure rate, basically the worst business decision you could make, especially if you're somehow on the hook for eating those losses (which seems to be the implication?). Is there a linkable source on this?

The only thing I could find is SemiAnalysis claims that 15% of Blackwells end up RMAed[1]. That appears to be a total failure rate, though, and if you're RMAing them, you're getting replacements. So that appears to be a pretty different state of things.

[1] https://www.dwarkesh.com/p/dylan-patel#:~:text=GPUs%20are%20...

> As much as I enjoy rust, there is no reason why a c++ library can’t be optimised to match the rust implementation.

I don't think anyone is claiming that. I took the GP's point as what was desired was a "safe, performant, compact, and compatible JPEG XL decoder in Rust" and "performant" (as defined as the speed of the c++ version) was passed two months ago.

> They usually come from the fact that rust implementations are usually a second (or 3rd, or 4th) iteration of the design, and the lessons learned help performance.

Sure, and looking at the recent commit histories, the team is focusing on getting the rust version ready for this milestone for obvious reasons, and is less concerned about immediate parity in the c++ codebase.

> The RWE paid 1.26 billion to acquire the lease on offshore wind. Payment is a refund.

The Trump administration told them it could continue to make the process drag out for more years as it has been or they could spend the money on fossil fuels. It was not any kind of market decision.

> Meanwhile Nvidia just announced a space-optimized Vera Rubin designed with SpaceX designed for orbital datacenters.

well, no, they announced the concept of a space-optimized Vera Rubin designed with SpaceX:

> NVIDIA and SpaceXAI are working to adapt that foundation to the requirements of orbital computing while preserving a common NVIDIA architecture and software ecosystem.

The press release is really announcing that SpaceX's terrestrial data centres are going to use Vera Rubin.

https://nvidianews.nvidia.com/news/spacexai-adopts-nvidia-ve...