metalcrow

4 ms·

1.
by metalcrow 3d ago
> Why are you treating those as if they're separate things? Because they are? You haven't explained at all your belief that they are the same. > This is just completely wrong. Don't mistake the path by which something h
2.
by metalcrow 3d ago
> Nukes don’t get “worse” because of physics, not because of laws. Yes, that's my point, that's why the metaphor is wrong
3.
by metalcrow 3d ago
> Criminals using LLMs does not make the LLM situation bad If you believe that bad things are not bad then there's nothing left to say. A billion people are going to die because you don't understand what is bad.
4.
by metalcrow 4d ago
The point is the risk is in counties being gifted or assisted in making it, not them building it on their own.
5.
by metalcrow 4d ago
Given what's happened since then with propaganda and wide spread scams, I think the original concerns about that have proven quite accurate
6.
by metalcrow 4d ago
> Presumably performance on the level of the current frontier of AI would be achieved in short order and the ceiling would only continue to advance from there That's an enormous presumption! You're saying that even in the theor
7.
by metalcrow 4d ago
We only know about the stuff in https://www.anthropic.com/threat-intelligence-report-septemb... because it's not open source. I assure you the open source and Chinese models are being used in this same way.
8.
by metalcrow 4d ago
North Korea got it with help from China, Israel got it with help from France. They didn't do it on their own.
9.
by metalcrow 4d ago
> Not in the way you seem to be thinking, no. Nuclear weapons can be banned because they are prohibitively expensive to research and build. You can't reliably hide a nuclear program. Isn't that true of AI as well? Data centers
10.
by metalcrow 4d ago
Sure, it's possible for regulations to make things worse, i will agree. But without regulations it's pretty clear things are going to end up VERY bad, and the only knob we have to make it not bad is regulations. So it's impor
11.
by metalcrow 4d ago
I don't think giving them free reign is going to do anything positive for it either.
12.
by metalcrow 4d ago
To further the metaphor, didn't the ban on nuclear weapons research work? We don't have pocket nukes, and there's very little risk of random countries acquiring their own due to the amount of work involved. To be concrete to
13.
by metalcrow 4d ago
That's a valid concern, but some of that is outright impossible. Banning chinese models and killing open source training is not happening without massive unified international cooperation, and that sort of level of action would require
14.
by metalcrow 4d ago
Honestly, fair point. There's not much truth to go around these days. But still, doing nothing is also a massive power grab. We're facing a technology with no comparison in the history of humanity: the creation of a new mind. Doin
15.
by metalcrow 4d ago
The regulations don't have to address the end goal, but the process of development itself. Even just a pause on frontier research is a good start
16.
by metalcrow 4d ago
> the positives are subjective, potential, and still not convincingly verifiable. Saying this post- millennium prize problem solving is laughable.
17.
by metalcrow 4d ago
A lot of people in this comments section seem to be against this, i genuinely don't get it? Why? Do you think the current state of affairs is GOOD? That if we let companies create a mind that is, AS OF TODAY, able to solve problems no
18.
by metalcrow 5d ago
Then what's the reason behind this decision?
19.
by metalcrow 8d ago
Yeah, that's the truth. Identifying someone is suicidal really kinda means very little. What are they going to do, lock you in a room and take away the little freedom you have to choose? Sure, that's helpful. Gonna be extra great
20.
by metalcrow 22d ago
Ah, TOS violations. I believe those may not hold up in court well from the limited amount I recall in previous cases, but IANAL
21.
by metalcrow 22d ago
Anyone familiar with the legal reasons Twitter might be able to prevent sites like nitter from working? I believe scraping is legal but I'm sure there are details that make this different
22.
by metalcrow 1mo ago
I do wonder though if the data retention should be restricted at all. This brings up a very good point that even old data (months or more) can be vital to cases or to the defense, but is there any downside to it that would make it worth res
23.
by metalcrow 1mo ago
Based on my understanding, it can only be applied to code in very limited ways: docstrings, variable names, string literals. The code itself can't really have tokens changed to another equally correct token (the foundation of the water
24.
by metalcrow 1mo ago
I think OP is referring to stuff like the Rupert Lowe’s Rape Gang Inquiry
25.
by metalcrow 1mo ago
it's not clear that's a requirement for this
26.
by metalcrow 2mo ago
Curious, how so?
27.
by metalcrow 2mo ago
Not quite. People shared these links but there was no indication that the links were accessable without the url. Google docs has a similar system where you can make a link to your doc and only people with that link can see it. But in this c
28.
by metalcrow 2mo ago
> to become good at the thing in the first place requires a complete reversal of the mindset that would lead one to having wanted to hand it off Is this true? I can be good at something and be happy to not have to do it anymore I feel
29.
by metalcrow 2mo ago
How does a person running a computer too fast cause them to build a building? Maybe make that part illegal, not the indirect cause. Otherwise we may wanna outlaw breathing, it may cause people to murder.
30.
by metalcrow 2mo ago
> An AI agent tried to commit some code to an open-source project and the human on the project rejected the code, so the AI agent spread false rumors about the person. There was relatively low danger, but the AI agent was no longer contr

More ›