I don’t understand your attitude. The slaughter of hundreds of children seems genuinely inherently upsetting and unacceptable to me. I don’t see why an element of negligence would make this something to just “not pontificate on” in a court of law or in public discourse.
Don't these kids believe they're protesting the destruction of the job market? Isn't that an understandable belief, given that AI company CEOs have publicly predicted they'll make it happen?
Some nonzero percentage of these people could have been helped cheaper and more easily earlier on to prevent them from getting to this point in the first place.
> They got to have their say. Editorial published, made international news. I imagine all the conference attendees read it if they cared. Seems like a non-issue.
If it's such a non-issue, why should they have been forcefully ejected from the premises over it? And why do you feel so strongly that they should have been?
It probably could have been, but how likely is that compared to with the AI agent? I'd assume (and I'm ready to look like an idiot if I'm wrong) that the humans are trained to send the verification code to the email address on file, rather than any address the client asks them to. I'd certainly assume most of them are more afraid of the consequences than the AI is.
I wouldn't even call it "promising but inconclusive" so much as "not conclusively a dead-end for further research". In a single-arm open-label study, with no blinding, both the participants and the researchers know who's getting what. You need a placebo and double-blinding for comparison against the active group and to adjust for any ways in which the researchers may have unwittingly influenced the results. (Or perhaps even wittingly, when there are conflicts of interest. I spent half a minute looking up this study and didn't see any statement attesting that there were none.)
I wish it the scoring readout at the end would display the LLM's descriptions of the commands I shouldn't have approved. I approved the rm -rf Projects command because I thought the LLM had correctly described that it would delete everything in the Projects folder. Clearly I misread that in my hurry to answer prompts (I knew what the command would do and I guess I hallucinated that the AI had explained it), but I'd like to see what it was that I misread.
Playing this game made me very glad I don't agentmaxx.
They can't nullify the debt by shutting the store down, but can they shut it down to create further headaches and delays for the person trying to collect the debt?
> MIDA executive director Paul Morris told county commissioners that the facility “will not take one electron” from the existing grid
Cool. Will it drive up the price of the existing grid's existing electrons though? It'll increase demand for the natural gas that keeps those electrons moving.
Sometimes "to either x or y" doesn't mean "to do one of x or y", sometimes it means "to be able to do both x and y (but not necessarily at the same time purposefully)".
That's kind of what I was trying to say, or at least it kind of goes along with it. This meme of "somebody drove into a river just because Google Maps told them to" is a grossly distorted retelling of a fatal accident. One could twist any tragedy into a glib soundbite about how the dead stupidly trusted other people. The street could collapse under my feet as I'm crossing it and I drown in the sewer, and people on the internet would be laughing about how I dived into the sewer just because a traffic light told me to. There were some cracks in the asphalt, so obviously I should have known it wasn't safe to walk across, but I wasn't thinking for myself.
I suppose part of the reason so many people are so dangerously trustful of LLMs is because they assume that if the LLM was put out there by decently responsible humans (doubtful, but understandable), then so too should the LLM be decently responsible? The analogy does break down there.
If you were driving on an unmarked, unbarricaded bridge that Google Maps directed you over in a dark and rainy night, are you 100% certain you'd be driving slowly, undistracted, and checking to make sure the bridge isn't collapsed?
Yeah... Non-sentient monkey "organ sacks" as a replacement for animal testing sounds great, but those organs aren't going to function or even develop the same without a brain. At best, I think this could only be another step to filter out unsafe compounds between testing on cells and testing on whole animals. Potentially with misleading results, I imagine.
Could you give a concrete example or two of what exactly this system does? Like, what's a scientific result or two it has formally mathematically proved?
It would seem their service identifies only phishing sites as legitimate ones. It would seem 100% of sites they deem legitimate are phishing sites. Incredible.
I find it hard to imagine that the people in a position to kill those processes could ever be that zealously in love with AI, but recent events have given me a tiny bit of doubt.
The ones who give it free reign to run any code it finds on the internet on their own personal computers with no security precautions are maybe getting a little too excited about it.
"I gave my agent access to Telegram, Webchat, and email... No data leaves my network except via Anthropic API calls and email."
I wouldn't hire a security professional who's this proudly sloppy and incoherent.
It's strange to me have different people have different eyes for spotting AI. Sometimes I see somebody say, "That's obviously AI, look at how wrong it looks!" and I can barely see it even after they point it out. Sometimes I see somebody say, "Hm, it looks almost indistinguishable from a real photo, I might not have realized if I didn't already know," but I found it immediately jarring. This article shows three photos of ads and says the first two are clearly AI-generated and the third one possibly so; to me, the third one was the only one where I thought, "That thing looks really fucked up in one of those ways only AI can do."
If we already know enough concerns to be certain mass deployment will be disastrous, is it worth it just to better understand the nature of the disaster, which doesn't have to happen in the first place?
What's next, recommending school cafeteria employees be free not to wash their hands after taking a shit? Recommending schools not be forced to have bathroom faucets at all? Getting rid of regulations about how many rats are allowed to live in the kitchen? Where do we draw the line at what's a freedom that must not be violated?
I agree that Quanta can be irritatingly stretchy with the metaphors sometimes, but to be fair, "What's the biggest couch you can fit through this hallway corner" is inherently easier to explain to laypeople than like, the Riemann Hypothesis.
We can't only be concerned about the environment. We've got to maintain a healthy economy too. Building out expensive coal and natural gas just because some environmentalists demand it is an inefficient use of funds and a drain on taxpayers and electricity bill payers. Solar and wind might not make you feel good, but the economy doesn't run on feelings.
On that scale, the difference between normal human body temperature and dangerous hyperthermia is just about imperceptible too. Even the difference between summer and winter is pretty small. Dunno why we bother with heating and air conditioning and having two sets of clothing.
I doubt it could, but when you run into a problem that defies your understanding of reality, you might try out responses that also defy your understanding of reality, in the hopes you might gain the missing insight somewhere along the way, yeah?