sobiolite

That review is a year old. Just maybe it’s improved since then?

The nearest "absolutely fucked" pub to me hasn't existed since 2008. I'd say they have bigger problems than a rates increase.

What I'm suggesting is: what if AIs get so good at crafting vulnerable (but apparently innocent) code than human review cannot reliably catch them?

And saying "ones that get less attention will continue to get less attention" is like imagining that only popular email addresses get spammed. Once malice is automated, everyone gets attention.

I wonder if we're going to end up in an arms race between AIs masquerading as contributors (and security researchers) trying to introduce vulnerabilities into popular libraries, and AIs trying to detect and fix them.

So I do think we're in a bubble, but I also remember when all the discussion around here was around Uber, and I read many, many hot takes about how they were vastly unprofitable, had no real business model, could never be profitable, and only existed because investors were pumping in money and as soon as they stopped, Uber would be dead. Well, it's now ten years later, Uber still exists, and last year they made $43.9bn in revenue and net income of $9.8bn.

> Nakamura responded to Kramnik’s allegations by arguing that focusing on a particular streak while ignoring other games was cherry-picking. The researchers note that there’s a problem with this argument, too, as it violates the likelihood principle. This principle tells us the interpretation should only rely on the actual data observed, not the context in which it was collected.

I don't quite understand this objection? If I won the lottery at odds of 10 million to 1, you'd say that was a very lucky purchase. But if it turned out I bought 10 million tickets, then that context would surely be important for interpreting what happened, even if the odds of that specific ticket winning would be unchanged?

Perhaps, but Hank Green published a pretty convincing argument recently that electricity supply has nowhere the necessary elasticity, and the politicised nature of power generation in the US means that isn't going to change:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39YO-0HBKtA

Won’t this be solved fairly soon when package managers have automatic scanning of updates by AIs that are superhumanly good at spotting malicious code?

I've noticed the same when looking at old Georgian and Victorian maps of London. You get these surprisingly sharp edges between urban and rural. You often have streets lined with quite grand buildings and nothing but fields behind them. It's quite strange when you're used to modern cities that gradually peter out into suburbs.

My guess is it's because at this point the population of cities was growing quickly, but the large scale migration of farm laborers into them hadn't begun in earnest yet. So most of the housing being built at the edges was intended for the expanding merchant classes, who wanted something a bit more impressive, and who also had live in servants. The Georgian terraces of London are typically three or four storeys, with the top storey being rooms with low-ceilings where the servants lived.

Ironic, Western politicians thought opening up to trade with China would lead to it adopting a Western model of government. Instead it's lead to the USA adopting the Chinese one.

DeepMind was founded and is still headquartered in London.

The article says that LLMs don't summarize, only shorten, because...

"A true summary, the kind a human makes, requires outside context and reference points. Shortening just reworks the information already in the text."

Then later says...

"LLMs operate in a similar way, trading what we would call intelligence for a vast memory of nearly everything humans have ever written. It’s nearly impossible to grasp how much context this gives them to play with"

So, they can't summarize, because they lack context... but they also have an almost ungraspably large amount of context?

There are versions of both these charts with more plausible numbers and bar sizes in the "evaluation" section of the announcement post:

https://openai.com/index/introducing-gpt-5/

So, maybe this is just sloppiness and not intentionally misleading. But still, not a good look when the company burning through billions of dollars in cash and promising to revolutionize all human activity can't put together a decent powerpoint.

I don't understand why consciousness is considered mysterious anymore. We know intelligent systems broadly work by learning, updating and querying a predictive world model. For accuracy, a sufficiently powerful system must necessarily start to include its own state and potential actions in this world model. This creates a recursive self-knowledge that produces self-awareness. The ongoing process of analyzing and acting upon this self-model is consciousness.