matthewdgreen

Again, the output of most University research is published in journals and conferences, with raw data increasingly available as artifacts. Publication does not always give all the data! Some proprietary datasets and tools exist, but the implications here usually affect academic competitiveness, not national security.

There are, of course, exceptions. Some Universities do classified or sensitive research where the result is not broadly published. There are fully classified labs associated with Universities, and some that just have sensitive research. But in general these are special exceptions and should be approached on a case-by-case basis, rather than with some blanket law. The assumption for University research should be: assumed fully transparent, except where there is a specific reason it isn't.

That's what they said about Brexit. 52% of the population voted yes in a single election, and the rest got dragged along for a multi-year ride. Current polls put support for the decision at 31%, but it's too late.

Many graduate students, faculty and post-docs are foreign citizens. So banning them from conducting research could potentially shut down big research projects. It is not surprising to me that the NIH and other funding agencies didn't want to do this. (It is also unsurprising to me that the current administration would have few qualms about disrupting research: we know they don't care, ask the cancer studies that had to be saved with private Foundation funding last year.)

Before you start throwing disruptive rules at projects, you generally want to know that there is a critical security concern for that specific work. Most research just gets published a few months later, so foreign interests can just read it in a journal and download the dataset.

The number of cars that experience -40F(C) in a year is something like 3% of all cars. In the US that number is more like 0.5%. And even within that 3%, the average number of days where cars experience that temperature is on the order of a 3-6 at most. We spend a lot of time worrying about edge cases.

If you look at their filings, they are now pivoting into an "AI company". (Meaning, that's where the majority of their future value is described as coming from.) It's possible that this is a harmless investor swindle and they'll keep relentlessly innovating. But you should probably be worried.

Putting it into a filing does not necessarily make it legally binding. I asked ChatGPT and (although it is clearly in the bag for OpenAI ;) it gave more color: https://chatgpt.com/share/6a0baf4a-e408-83ea-a44b-ff68bacb64...

Elon Musk is busy arguing to massively cut social security because it's fiscally unsustainable. He's also claimed that AI will create so much wealth that 'everyone can have a penthouse if they want'. These beliefs do not seem consistent, but the instinct to fight taxation is extremely consistent.

Reviewing papers, writing papers, these are all part of what grad students do and what they should be doing to learn. They should be getting academic credit for it, however. Your friend sounds like he had an extremely unusual and bad experience, or there's a bit more to the story.

I don't really like to make broad general arguments about "elites". But if we're humoring this argument: I would postulate that the sudden need to police cheating and the more recent bad behavior of our elite adults are probably both symptoms of something deeper. Whatever that is, it should be what makes you angry.

Yes, this is really depressing. I don't want to have to ban devices from exams, but it is something I might have to think about.

Most of us have done something stupid once in our lives. That does not mean we do stupid things all the time, nor does it mean that we didn't learn from the experience. The goal of school is to help immature young adults grow into mature ones.

The real question is: how do we produce hydrogen from the coming massive overbuilding of cheap-but-variable solar. Nuclear reactors are a whole different animal: even if we build them "cheaply" they're not going to approach the costs of overbuilt solar, so those nuclear watts will be better used for other purposes.

I wish we would normalize people just running a business well and taking a damned salary.

By attaching your government ID to a (single) phone and verifying the human owns it by checking biometrics. You can try this today if you live in one of several US states and have a recent iOS/Android phone. This doesn't stop one real person from attaching their ID to one real phone and then abusing it for botting, but (if implemented well) it limits you to one-real-ID-one-bot-phone.

The adtechs want this so they can verify the "human" quality of each user. To do this, they don't want people tapping their government ID on their phones every single time they sign up for Reddit or receive an advertisement. Hence (some derivative of) the ID has to be stored on-device to make the browsing/usage experience seamless.

Google's business is advertising. Right now they don't care whether your phone is "authentic" or secure, because it doesn't cost them money. As AI-enabled bot fraud rises, they will care. Fighting this requires identifying human beings, and that requires trusted devices to be associated with human beings. We're in the foothills still, but look forward and up at where adtech is going.

Sure, but then you need to receive an attestation from that external dongle, and/or pre-provision it with an identity (like a national ID smartcard.) It might work in places that distribute this hardware, but it's a crummy UX. I expect that the goal of these systems is to make ID verification a requirement for most routine device usage, sadly, and external dongles will crap that up from a UX perspective.

There is also the problem that most external hardware is less secure than things like Apple's SEP. (But on the other hand, probably more secure than the long tail of cheap Android phones, which use virtualization rather than real hardware.)

One of the major problems with on-device identifiers is that they must by tied tightly to devices, due to the risks of cloning. This is particularly true for privacy-preserving identifiers. That's why device attestation is so important, because you can't ensure that identity (keys) are locked to a device unless you can verify that the hardware prevents users from extracting keys. The worst part of this is that motivated criminals will certainly figure out how to extract those keys and use them for fraud; it's open-source and open computing that will be destroyed by this.

Open weight models will keep pace because capable open-weight models are China's strategy for preventing a closed takeover of AI by the West.

Not only this, but the benefit of SMR is based on the possibility that they can be mass-produced at low cost. Until that happens, the benefit doesn’t exist. Solar and batteries and wind have already passed that threshold, but cheap mass-produced SMRs don’t exist yet, even if someone can point to a couple of expensive, bespoke SMRs.

It doesn’t really matter if people on HN or Reddit are in favor of nuclear. At the end of the day, nuclear will get built if someone thinks the cost is worth it over the alternatives. The Internet fan club is mostly irrelevant.

Are you using the same AI engineering tools you were using 2-3 years ago? 1 year ago? I'm not. Without a network effect, capturing revenue is hard.

"But writing a genuinely good harness with lots of context engineering and solid tool integration is in fact not that easy."

It is surprisingly easy to do it once someone else has done the work. Increasingly that's the nature of AI-based software engineering: point it at an existing tool and ask it to carefully duplicate features until it has parity. As you pointed out, frontier LLM companies happen to be well positioned to sell the resulting products.

Plus more generally, contact with peers through publishing is good. It is easy to end up with work that does not really advance the state of the art if you’re not making regular trips to convince others that your work is interesting.

If I ran the FBI I would be very gently keeping tabs on the most fervent (and technically capable) anti-AI groups. Unfortunately I don't think anyone is currently running the FBI. If I was tightly connected to folks in these communities, I would be keeping tabs on my friends and making sure they're not getting talked into anything crazy.

You have a population of relatively wealthy, scientifically-educated people who believe that AI risk is real and existential. That if they/we don't act, humanity itself might become extinct -- and that this is an unacceptable outcome. Then you have Yudkowsky mooting the possibility that this is basically inevitable (in the absence of global coordination that seems highly unlikely), and suggesting that hyper-violent outcomes might be literally the only way our species survives.

What I am not saying: Yudkowsky intends to exterminate most of humanity.

What I am saying: this is a dangerous environment, and these kinds of statements will be seen as a call to action by a certain kind of person. TFA is literal proof of the truth of that statement. Moreover: within the community there exist trained experts who might be able to, at the cost of millions of lives, plan an attack that could (plausibly) delay AI by many years.

The danger of this argument is that someone who reveres Yudkowsky might take his arguments to the logical conclusion, and actually do something to act on them. (Although I can't prove it, I also think Yudkowsky knows this, and his decision to speak publicly should be viewed as an indicator of his preferences.) That's why these conversations are so dangerous, and why I'm not going to give Yudkowsky and his folks a lot of credit for "just having an intellectual argument." I think this is like having an intellectual discussion about a theater being on fire, while sitting in a crowded theater.

Eliezer Yudkowsky has gone so far as to say that it might be ok to kill most of humanity (excepting a "viable reproduction population") to stop AI. If that's not just talk, then this line reasoning only gives you a few possible modes of action. I would not be worried about the people with Molotov cocktails, but I'd be very worried about bio terrorism.

That's like pointing out that Rhode Island isn't designed to be a self-sufficient grid.

This reads like you just desperately wanted to criticize, but couldn't really be troubled to research the background for a minute or two.

The IRA was a law passed by Congress. It set aside funds for grid upgrades, but did give some latitude to the President to deal with crises, because it was understood that Congress couldn't move quickly enough to deal with sudden supply issues. One thing that happened was the investments into grid upgrades created a demand shock, and transformer pricing and timelines surged upwards. So at that point the President invoked the DPA and used a chunk of IRA funding to try to unsnarl the transformer pipeline so the rest of the project could proceed. Then Trump (for basically arbitrary reasons) decided to screw it up. (He's also screwed it up in ways that probably just plain violate the law, but he doesn't care about that either -- which is why "run policy purely from the Legislative branch" doesn't fix any of this.)

Given the context -- a broad law duly passed by the slower legislative branch, a crisis dealt with (according to the law) by the more nimble Executive branch -- I am struggling to make your criticism sound reasonable, even with the absolute maximal dose of charity. This is basically the kind of governance that we want a functioning Legislative and Executive branch to engage in; it was screwed up on purpose; and your proposed solution/excuse does not produce better outcomes.

We're not talking about starting over from scratch, we're talking about replacing a bunch of parts after a major geomagnetic event or something similar. Yes -- we would very much want to do this. And hundreds of millions of lives would be at stake if we delayed longer.