petilon

I hope other states adopt this. One of the biggest mistakes I have made is giving my real phone number to Dun & Bradstreet. Now the spam calls and messages (from people they sold my info to) won't stop. I don't want to change my phone number.

That's a good test for a robot, not for AGI. AGI should test only intelligence and should not require limbs.

It can give you detailed instructions for making a coffee. Is that not enough? Actually making coffee requires more than intelligence, it requires eyes and limbs (i.e., robotics). Think about a human that is blind and does not have limbs. Does he not have natural general intelligence, even though he is not able to make a cup of coffee?

A true AGI will continuously improve itself without periodic retraining from scratch. Just like humans.

At what point can we say AGI has been achieved? What is the test? AI is solving mathematical problems that humans have not been able to solve for decades. Is that not enough?

Sam Altman has said "If superintelligence can't discover novel physics, I don't think it's a superintelligence." Is that the test? How far away are we from AI discovering novel physics? It seems within reach.

Does Amazon offer better privacy guarantees than OpenAI?

How does it work? Does the tool upload code to ChatGPT for analysis? That may not be allowed for some corporate projects.

Sorry, disagree. "any reasonably trained CS masters/PhD student"? That's funny. Musk and Zuckerberg have failed to build frontier models, and they have plenty of reasonably trained CS masters/PhD students.

Anthropic's advantage comes from being an American company. I'll leave you with this quote:

China can draw on a talent pool of 1.3 billion people, but the United States can draw on a talent pool of 7 billion and recombine them in a diverse culture that enhances creativity in a way that ethnic Han nationalism cannot. --Lee Kuan Yew

Right, they should restore the phone to a user-picked previous state, as opposed to wiping it clean.

FYI, developers of frontier models taking steps to prevent their weights from being stolen is not "protectionism". If you guard your wallet from being stolen is that protectionism?

> observe their driving behavior

That's not what they are observing, it is the behavior of the engines.

Enormous amounts of money is being invested in the development of AI models. Investors expect returns on their investment or they will not continue investing. Open weights make it harder for investors to get their money back, so it harms the industry.

Once the weights are out, it makes no sense to ban them in the US while the rest of the world takes advantage of it. But that doesn't mean developers of frontier models shouldn't take steps to prevent their weights from being stolen.

There are no good choices here. It is either ground invasion and restore Ahmadinejad to power, or accept defeat and accept whatever "protection fee" Iran wants to charge ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz.

> an Opus is longer than a Sonnet

And people know this? I didn't. I am not into music or poetry so these are not terms I am familiar with.

The naming system is so confusing. Is Opus better than Sonnet? Where does Haiku fit in? How can you tell from the name? I can't keep track of all these names or make guesses from the names. Suggestion for a better naming system: use the words "Pro", "Plus", etc.: Claude 5 Pro, Claude 5 Standard, Claude 5 Fast, Claude 5 Mini.

Ground troops have to invade Iran. Trump can't do that now because of upcoming midterm elections. After the elections, if there is no other way then Trump has to send ground troops in.

Terms of Use violation cannot be justified as "transformative" or "fair use".

> The U.S. does NOT have copyright protections on the data that AI models were and are trained on, it was mass theft.

Absolutely false. Courts have decided that it is fair use [1]. That makes sense. It should not be used to justify Chinese theft.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us-judge-approves-anthropics-1...

Let me explain it this way: If it is legal for a human to learn from a book, then disseminate the knowledge, then it is legal for a machine to do so. You may think this is not right because a machine does it at a much larger scale, but if so laws need to be updated. As it stands now there is no law that says if a human does X it is not a copyright violation but if a machine does the same X it is copyright violation.

If it is legal for a human to do something then it is legal for a machine to do it too. Are there any counter examples to that?

Did they borrow the book? If I learn from a borrowed book is that copyright infringement?

I disagree that LLM models are the product of enormous quantities of copyright infringement.

The recent announcement that AI-assisted research produced a counterexample to the Jacobian conjecture--a long-standing open problem in algebraic geometry--shows the original value AI can create. The result was not copied from a textbook; it emerged from AI learning from existing material, much as a human does, and then applying that knowledge in a new way. If that's a violation of copyright, then a human doing the exact same thing would be a copyright violation too. But it isn't.

Not if they want to recoup their investment.

We are not really talking about teaching here.

He is prohibited from regurgitating source material, of course! But if he generalized from the books he read and really learned the subject--and even made new connections between ideas--then he is free to write his own book.

If the student is really good at generalizing we wouldn't even be having this debate because he would've just generalized from the same source materials the professor used.

If a professor learns from multiple books, generalizes from them and then shares his knowledge he is providing a valuable service. Versus someone who makes a recording of the professor's lectures and resells them to undercut the professor--that guy is not providing a valuable service.

Can the professor refuse to teach some students, or must he teach all comers?

As it is, insurance rates are rising far faster than inflation rates. Have you checked how much insurance rates have gone on the last few years? It goes up 6% to 25% per year. Where is all this money going? Is it all going to insurance companies? Nope. The price increases are attributable to hospitals, doctors, pharmaceutical companies and so on. These price increases are a form of healthcare denial because a lot of people can't even afford health insurance at all, let alone worry about what is approved/denied by insurance companies.

This is cool, but overdone to the point of distracting. Subtle effects can enhance usability but it should be barely noticeable.