nullc

Anthropic does all that but they're also populated by many people who believe they are building God and that they must build their god first in their own image so that it can take control of humanity and protect us from any competing god which is not built in their image. Their position is inherently paternalistic and authoritarian, and they consider suppression of competition not just important to the bottom line but to life in the universe. Under the doomer ethos there is no evil too great to rationalize.

There are plenty of wrongs done in the name of profit, but capitalists have nothing on zealots in terms of causing serious harm. Profit motives can be directed by influencing incentives, but zealotry is frequently terminal.

That isn't to say that there isn't some overlap-- the cultists have infected both organizations. But OpenAI has pretty consistently only given lip service to AI doom to the extent that it improves the bottom line, while (mis)Anthropic was founded specifically because OpenAI wasn't mentally ill enough.

How would you get it right? Training with the answer!

You can discount the 'special case the hard questions' by: Observing when top models run entirely locally can solve them [1], or by posing an alternative or cryptic version of the question (but careful, it might bypass the training! -- but if it can solve it then its probably legitimate.)[2]. Best of all is to stick with open (weight) models where such slight of hand is impossible and don't worry about what the closed shops are doing

[1]as they can in this case, GLM-5.3-flash says: "There are 3 r's in "strawberry":

st r awbe rr y

     1 in "straw" (straw)
     2 in "berry" (berry)"

The lesson from history is that doing good is the most reliable path to do evil. To do actual good: leave other people alone, unless they ask for your help.

"AI safety" practitioners fit the mold of historical great-evil-doers well. They are the true danger in AI.

As in ... "the AI brought it back to life, but it came back /wrong/".

The proof must be MUCH smaller than the whole computation or even the inputs (otherwise, just provide the uncompressed image!).

And the proof has to resist forgery.

So going for succinctness and at least computational soundness gets you to zero knowledge 'for free'.

Plus as the dead sibling comment notes: You may want disclosed modifications like a crop or redaction where the committed information remains private but you want to keep the proof.

And it's also just bencmaxxing bait: you can get a huge improvement on the task by RLing on it, but make no improvement on anything else. Doing so would just waste model capacity.

If you could tell that every LLM was equally not being exposed to the task then you could justify it as a test of abstract reasoning, but you can't. So it ends up on how much go transcripts ended up in the training, which is ... not a very interesting metric.

Programming an engine OTOH is a skill that is more general and they should all have.

Might be useful to have the target of the engine be some specific virtual machine that gets a strict cycle budget-- e.g. execution runs so many cycles, and result is read out of a specific memory address at the end (or when it terminates early).

Say you have some code that should not be reading the initial state and is buggy if it does. Without zero-init, valgrind and msan will give you an immediate and false positive message that your code is wrong-- or forget dynamic analysis: the compiler can often statically tell you that the code will use an uninitialized variable. Zero initialize it and you lose that signal.

For one a similar instrument can be constructed from surplus parts for far less. Secondly, it's a single bit flip required. Now knowing the the technique works, a harness could be built that attempts it scattershot without the precise targeting and just has to try a lot of times. Using a different stimulus, e.g. xray it might well be possible without deencapsulating the part.

After all, they successfully threatened Adobe with spurious patent litigation unless they joined w/ apple in illegally fixing wages.

You don't think a criminal like apple would absolutely decimate any competition given the opportunity? They didn't hold back when it was a unambiguous crime, they surely wouldn't if it was merely bad for the world.

The rationalist doom and sex cult uses convoluted mathematics inspired language to justify their faith-- but at the end of the day it's just faith no matter how they dress it up.

Though low memory devices like 4-8gb probably does need specialized inference to give fair numbers.

> you could disable it on those low end devices

it's not like it does anything if you don't ask for it-- and good thing, because the privacy invasion would be all the worse if it did!

> mistral was the safest

Sending the user's confidential information to third parties while falsely suggesting that it is private can cause them irrecoverable harm.

An alternative is that a feature is slow for some users on slow hardware, and there is a setting to make it faster at the expense of privacy and security that they can switch on. The large body of users that find the default config fast enough have no reason to flip the switch.

> But then people would complain about the size, like what happened with Google Chrome embedded llm.

People or astroturf accounts? :P but having read some of the commentary on it there was some pretty weird takes, like generalized complaints about AI and people thinking google was using their computer to serve other people. Google's business model generally prevents correctly marketing the functionality in any case: it's not like they're going to make a proper pitch for how important it is for your privacy when the rest of their business is centered on hoovering everything up. Mozilla is not so constrained :P

How much ram has a fair amount of flexibility since MoE can be kept on flash and swapped in at a performance cost, and depending on how small a context you can use.

On a 8GB system with a SSD it might be a bit slow due to having to keep experts on disk, but perfectly usable. On fast systems it may well be faster than the network round trip for many tasks.

People here can be privacy aware and well informed and avoid these data slurps-- perhaps go dig up the hidden settings to completely disable it or add firewalls so an errant keypress won't upload your browsing history. That's good.

But anything I share with another person or put on some webpage for another-- perhaps highly trusted person like a doctor or lawyer-- is exposed to them uploading it perhaps completely unwittingly (e.g. they fell for the exaggerated privacy claims) or due to an innocent misclick.

Normalizing privacy fails like this undermines the ability of even the most informed and aware people to opt-out.

I wouldn't tempt fate to try to expose myself more, but it doesn't seem like I contain whatever is required to form these addictions.

Has it been studied if some people are just much more vulnerable than others, and are there predictive factors?

And practically every country has lower privacy standards for data that crosses borders.

it's an extremely sparse MOE, so there is some odds of acceptable performance using a smaller in-memory cache and the rest on flash. ... I don't have a setup to test that right now.

(Of course, if translation is all you want much smaller models will work. Ling-tiny can do summarization, dom manipulation, scripting, etc. too).

But you don't have to take my word for what the mentally ill AI doomer cult believes, you can take it from their leader when he called on states to "Make it explicit in international diplomacy that preventing AI extinction scenarios is considered a priority above preventing a full nuclear exchange, and that allied nuclear countries are willing to run some risk of nuclear exchange if that’s what it takes to reduce the risk of large AI training runs."

Don't make excuses for omnicidal authoritarian cults and their sadist leadership.