janalsncm

4 ms·

1.
by janalsncm 4d ago
So glad you shared this talk. Having people like Bruce Schneier around in a time like this is really a gift. For those who haven’t watched, his breakdown of types of “hacking” is really good.
2.
by janalsncm 4d ago
Yoshua Bengio is a brilliant researcher who contributed enormously to earlier development of artificial intelligence. But with this sentence, > They took actions that would be considered as crimes if a human took them He is so close to t
3.
by janalsncm 4d ago
How hard is it to flash the ROM of these TVs with something that doesn’t spy on people? Feels like in the age of Claude Code the answer should be to strip out the evil side of the Faustian bargain of adtech-subsidized smart devices. Hackers
4.
by janalsncm 4d ago
Jevon’s paradox is a common talking point but it is not a law of nature. LED lightbulbs use 80% less energy than incandescent but you don’t see people using 5x more lights on their homes. The overall energy used to light homes has decreased
5.
by janalsncm 7d ago
> When people believe that AI could figure this out on its own, without first running extensive and expensive basic science experiments, they have left the realm of science and have entered what can only be described as religion. I stron
6.
by janalsncm 10d ago
The problem is this entire argument depends on “chain of thought” being a faithful representation of a model’s actual plan. That doesn’t need to be the case. Thinking tokens are just tokens at the end of the day. Do you know what is a faith
7.
by janalsncm 12d ago
Basically your argument relies on two claims, both of which must be true. 1. Competitors to OpenAI and Anthropic are good because of distillation. 2. OpenAI and Anthropic will come up with some methods for preventing distillation in the fut
8.
by janalsncm 13d ago
Maybe another way to say it is to reframe the idea of “human in the loop”. Humans are always in the loop, because we can always expand the definition of loop to include the humans that pushed the button and built the system and processes th
9.
by janalsncm 13d ago
Yes as a teenager I made many mistakes, not least of them being making a Gmail account. I even used it to sign up for a few services. I do have a bit of a wild side so sometimes I log in to check it.
10.
by janalsncm 13d ago
Log scale should only affect how the years are displayed on the chart, not how they are sampled.
11.
by janalsncm 13d ago
If the implementation was correct it wouldn’t be hard to let the user choose either option. Yes, many births would be within the last 200 years but it’s still very different to be a man born in the year 1950 in New York vs a woman in 1950 i
12.
by janalsncm 13d ago
That would certainly be easier at this point, but I like the “random human life” idea more. I’ve reflected in the past about how lucky I am to have been born where I was, when I was, and be given the abilities that I have. Sure there are pl
13.
by janalsncm 13d ago
I think this would be cool if it actually worked as intended. This simulation doesn’t even draw birth years correctly. The right way would be to bucket people by something like 1 million. Everyone in the bucket has the same sex, birth year
14.
by janalsncm 13d ago
That’s not what it says on the tin though. “Drawn at random from everyone who has ever lived” means years will not be uniformly distributed.
15.
by janalsncm 13d ago
If you are telling the truth you might want to check your network for any weird connections to Chinese LLM transit stations.
16.
by janalsncm 13d ago
Ok so the correct comparison would be to fix the harness on the old model and re-compare. Now they are comparing a new model to an old crippled one.
17.
by janalsncm 14d ago
It’s more like if Zitron was a doctor his prognosis would be “you’re going to die on Tuesday” and you come back on Wednesday (after not dying on Tuesday) and he defends it by saying “everybody dies”.
18.
by janalsncm 14d ago
Maybe just a big Mitch Hedberg fan?
19.
by janalsncm 14d ago
I will give Anthropic credit for standing up against the department of war. The bar is incredibly low, but not doing domestic surveillance and not creating autonomous weapons are laudable. That doesn’t mean I like them pirating books and be
20.
by janalsncm 14d ago
Oh nice, I came here and made a very similar comment. I like the Easter eggs that reward readers who are paying attention.
21.
by janalsncm 14d ago
> February 2025: "I will keep writing this stuff until I’m proven wrong." Wrong (Zitron continues to write despite repeatedly being proven wrong) This was a good one.
22.
by janalsncm 16d ago
That’s fair, but my impression is that AI is a very industry-driven field. When commercialization fails, industry funding dries up and drags gov funding down too, resulting in an AI winter. And industry really cares about solving practical
23.
by janalsncm 16d ago
It’s both. Fine-tuning a BERT model changes its weights, which causes the embeddings to change. For example you might have one model which embeds a text query and another model which embeds an image. You also have a dataset of image + text
24.
by janalsncm 16d ago
In that case, you agree with me that you don’t have a right to privacy for all of the reasons I already stated plus the additional one that you can’t afford to fight it in court.
25.
by janalsncm 16d ago
Switching to end to end encrypted chat is a technical solution to what is ultimately a social/political problem. It doesn’t work: https://www.fire.org/cases/florida-international-university-...
26.
by janalsncm 17d ago
GPT2 and 3 work via autoregression. In chat bots, decoders work via autoregression. > people spend years just post-training BERTs in various ways Yes, I was one of them. That’s not called “post-training” it’s called fine-tuning.
27.
by janalsncm 17d ago
1) Except for specific things like third and fourth amendment rights, you don’t have a blanket “privacy” right, much less in public. 2) If your argument is that flock cameras are illegal, take them to court.
28.
by janalsncm 17d ago
My impression at the time was they were perhaps overly cautious but this was a bunch of researchers who wanted to self-regulate. Anthropic didn’t exist, deepmind was also much less product-focused and relatively cautious. Chinese models wer
29.
by janalsncm 17d ago
> [in 2020/2021] the dominance of autoregression was not as well-established as it is today: GPT-3 had turned some heads, but the ‘ChatGPT moment’ wouldn’t come until late 2022 I disagree with this. Decoders were absolutely dominant
30.
by janalsncm 19d ago
I’d imagine the choice would be Windows (+$120) Linux ($0) DIY ($0)

More ›