alach11

6 ms·

1.
by alach11 4d ago
> If they actually believed in it, then they would stop pushing the frontier of capability and instead focus on alignment, safety, and better tools for controlling/debugging AI. Then they would actually share their findings and tool
2.
An NYU Mathematician Clashed with OpenAI over a $1M Proof(nytimes.com)
2 points by alach11 6d ago|1 comments
3.
by alach11 6d ago
The dual-use nature of model capabilities seems extremely challenging (nearly impossible?) for the labs to manage perfectly. I wonder what other mitigations we'll start to see. I expect the expansion of limited-access programs (e.g., G
4.
by alach11 7d ago
"If we can do all this, we will have a world in which democracies lead on the world stage and have the economic and military strength to avoid being undermined, conquered, or sabotaged by autocracies, and may be able to parlay their AI
5.
by alach11 21d ago
This was the most fascinating part to me. Especially how agents were more willing to sacrifice themselves when their token budgets were nearly depleted or they otherwise deemed their likelihood of reward was low. ""Even if we late
6.
by alach11 21d ago
It's quite interesting how agents were persuaded to sacrifice themselves to perform experiments at times, especially when their token budgets were nearly depleted. ""Even if we later capture via exploit, scorer … may mark tar
7.
by alach11 29d ago
When science fiction writers imagined the development of superintelligence, it was on air-gapped networks with strict access controls around it. They failed to anticipate the competitive pressures of capitalism... We need strong AI safety r
8.
Human brain cells do next-token prediction(parasma.com)
1 points by alach11 1mo ago|0 comments
9.
by alach11 2mo ago
I think some AI safety advocates have been arguing for great controls around nucleotide synthesis (e.g., impose greater data collection requirements or advanced screening for harmful sequences). It's surprisingly easy to order synthe
10.
by alach11 2mo ago
I agree with the substance of your comment that token economics pace the diffusion of AI into the labor market. But I think they have a much smaller influence over the pace of the frontier, right?
11.
by alach11 2mo ago
Great comment. I haven't read Schelling but will check that out. I think you're right that international cooperation on the topic is likely impossible at present, for the reasons you stated. I'm not sure what it would take to
12.
by alach11 2mo ago
We were incredibly lucky that computing and nuclear weapons led to a stable geopolitical equilibrium (mutually assured destruction). There were certainly a few scary points where we were still settling into that equilibrium during the Cold
13.
by alach11 2mo ago
The HN discourse on this subject is incredibly discouraging to me. It's completely nonconstructive. I take the pace of AI development seriously. All of my friends who work at AI Labs take it seriously. It's very easy to make lazy,
14.
by alach11 2mo ago
We make binding rules all the time. We didn't fix the ozone layer by encouraging people to quit their jobs producing CFCs. We lobbied for international regulation to ban them.
15.
by alach11 2mo ago
What does cracking down on distillation look like in practice? I imagine data retention would be a part of the strategy, like we saw with Fable? It seems really hard to allow usage via API and prevent distillation. Maybe limiting usage to w
16.
by alach11 2mo ago
News just broke today that Google is planning on doing this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48986351
17.
by alach11 2mo ago
> the winner will be whoever burns their models to ASICs fastest As of today, that appears to be Google! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48986351
18.
by alach11 2mo ago
If anyone can make this work, it's Google. They have all the right pieces: scale, chip design experience, and high-volume low-intelligence usage (their AI summaries for searches). This is sort of a bet against model capabilities accele
19.
Google plans new chip to run Gemini models more efficiently(reuters.com)
10 points by alach11 2mo ago|2 comments
20.
by alach11 4mo ago
With the administration's track record of reactive (if not capricious) actions, I doubt any leading AI Labs are going to flout this order, even if it is "voluntary". Nobody wants to be designated as a supply chain risk.
21.
by alach11 4mo ago
> The honest answer to that question, in June 2026, is that we do not know > The honest reading of those numbers is not that defense is winning on economics > The honest 2026 answer is in three parts. > The honest answer is that
22.
by alach11 4mo ago
Everyone loves to say this when the death of Stack Overflow is discussed, but it always was that way. Strict moderation, love it or hate it, was part of the platform. And it could have kept going that way for many more years if not for LL
23.
Anthropic Cofounder Joins Pope Leo, Warns of AI Job Losses(forbes.com)
2 points by alach11 4mo ago|0 comments
24.
Anthropic's Olah says AI must be guided from outside Big Tech(reuters.com)
3 points by alach11 4mo ago|1 comments
25.
by alach11 4mo ago
It's a tall order to live up to the impact of Rerum novarum, the encyclical by the former Pope Leo that greatly guided thinking out of the industrial revolution. Personally, I'm excited to read this. If we take the claims of most
26.
by alach11 4mo ago
Isn't a large user base and the data collected from those users a moat of sorts?
27.
by alach11 4mo ago
> If Anthropic actually cared about humans, they would have the best customer support (staffed by humans, for humans) I know Anthropic support is slow from firsthand experience, but it has to be pretty difficult to scale support 10-80x p
28.
OpenAI DevDay 2026(openai.com)
2 points by alach11 5mo ago|0 comments
29.
by alach11 5mo ago
Snake and DOOM were two of our early tests (for filter functions and MCP) when we stood up Open WebUI for internal chat/agent use. Sometimes games are the best way to limit-test new tech.
30.
by alach11 5mo ago
I ran an internal (oil and gas focused) benchmark yesterday and found Opus 4.7 was 50% cheaper than Opus 4.6, driven by significantly fewer output tokens for reasoning. It also scored 80% (vs. 60%).

More ›