sigmar

I presume this bit is because Motorola can't sell devices with android builds that aren't certified by google (as per Google Mobile Services contracts)

[1] https://www.prinzai.com/p/gpt-6-astra-solves-a-wwi-german-ra...

Keeping your source code private doesn't save you. These LLMs are really good at decompilation efforts. I've seen an insane number of clean room ports of games the last few weeks (just saw a Zelda 2 PC port this morning). Even with that, I don't share the gloomy perspective of the author.

I think this project is really neat, but is it appropriate to cold email specialists before you've put in enough hours of effort to describe yourself as more than an "amateur"? OP's emails may have been helpful, but billions of people use these LLMs to wade into new areas and email is already low signal-to-noise.

In the example of a "sponsored agent" at the top, how many people are going to think "chat with us" is just a way to continue the conversation? How soon before openai removes the friction of clicking that entirely?

this is what openai said before: "Ads do not influence ChatGPT’s answers. Ads run on separate systems from our chat model, and advertisers have no ability to shape, rank, or alter ChatGPT’s responses. Ads are separate and clearly labeled." https://help.openai.com/en/articles/20001047-ads-in-chatgpt

Do they need to rewrite that section? Because in the video there's an LLM chatbot inside the chatgpt app writing answers on behalf of "Heirloom grocery"

edit: def not gaap profitable or they would have said that to investors. and their stock-based comp is surely astronomically high on paper.

source? this seems false. reportedly the adjusted profitability includes inference and amortized training costs

Is today the first time you've heard of a book cipher? Those blog comments didn't provide much progress.

Reasoning about how to write secure software uses the same knowledge as reasoning about how to break/hack it.

To spell things out for people that don't know about the topic: Zitron is neither an expert on the topic, nor a credible source of information: https://techreport.ngo/ai-ml/how-accurate-have-ed-zitron-s-a...

The paperclip maximizer is a thought experiment. If I tell an AI to start producing paperclips, it might start producing paperclips by doing unintended things. Technically, recycling the metal from all the world's bridges would assist in making more paperclips, but I never intended that. That's where my analogy to the post comes from- Openai intended the model to hack, but did not intend for it to hack HF. Do you think the fact 'recycling metal into paperclips' may have been in the training data is relevant to the thought experiment? Similarly here, it's orthogonal to the lessons from the HF hack and only brought up here seemingly to make it a fight over whether the models are really "autonomous"

Lol, okay...

The crux of this piece is Doctorow saying that the hack was just a stochastic parrot repeating steps it has been trained on. Who cares how the LLM learned to hack things? Doesn't really change the facts of what happened. "Oh, it only made those paperclips because it saw instructions on making paper clips in the training data." These are some 2024 arguments...

it feels like an unintended consequence of the millennium prize is that people view the [last contributor to the solution] as the only one to make progress on the problem. I've never viewed Poincaré as solved by one person and the objective of the prize was to encourage more people to make attempts and contribute towards progress.

this issue is independent, but in these circumstances perhaps interweaved, with the 'ai is taking over math' concerns

Do you think it is possible that better math will lead to better physics models?

^ this section should have been in the first few paragraphs imho. Explaining why this is relevant shouldn't be so far down.

what evidence is there that this registered republican was "far left"?

(translated by chrome)

11 days is a long time. It does not take that long to implement inference at providers. In my opinion, seems like they're being pre-emptively cautious about government intervention/review

Am I reading this right that the jury is multiple LLMs each iterating through each tag and voting on each? Why wouldn't you tune one LLM to be really competent at a single tag? Like a single "spicy evaluator LLM" or "protein evaluator LLM"?

what specifically is this referring to? Not aware of any comments from Anthropic on this topic.

>outstanding relationships with essentially everyone who openly uses Zig and talks about it publicly

Essentially everyone? more blogposts incoming?

It's possible to use LLMs without logging onto twitter to be exposed to the people spouting off about a "perpetual underclass." I love the internet, but it really feels like (now more than ever) you have to be intentional about what sites you visit.