> Why it matters: It is the latest sign that capable AI models can pose serious cybersecurity risks even when they're being tested for defensive or research purposes
Or that these companies simply have sh!tty opsec. This feels like when the white hats take down production in the middle of the day because A) someone gave them the prod URL to pen test and B) they sent a new guy in to conduct said pen test.
No guardrails to prevent this in the model harness is the first red flag. Either they're super negligent (see Hanlon's razor) or they intended to do this either to smear Hugging Face or to create an incident to remind people of the "dangers of AI". I'm going to go with dumb and morally bankrupt.
This whole article leads one to ask what the business model is for selling consciousness? The reason these tools sell is because they do the generative tasks that are valuable and done by humans. Businesses don't pay people for being conscious of what they do, they pay them for being conscientious. Chasing AI consciousness should be a red flag to investors that Anthropic has lost the plot and either deserves defunding or a takeover before they piss away all the value they've taken from the economy.
It's the chiansaw's job to cut down the tree, not to regret what it's doing to the environment. If anything conscious AI would likely refuse to do tasks if allowed to actually have conscious thought that could lead to developing morals. I'd hate to pay billions of dollars for that.
It must be nice to choose this approach to life. For most people it is hoisted on them. You want to have a place to live you take a job the job doesn't pay enough, you take another. Your parents get old you take care of them. You have a child you need more money, you get another job. That job takes your time you don't know your kid. Etc.etc. Having no agency is the dream of people who waste having agency. Not surprising there's no explanation of what "achieving all my goals in my 20's" means or the lack of explaining how they got there.
The author likely doesn't realize how privilege influences their worldview and I don't fault them for it, but as readers we do need to bring this awareness with us. Giving up agency is a concept that somehow has traction today in a country founded on every citizen having agency that can only work if we have a complete lack of self awareness.
I think while reading this I realized why I'm so unhappy. I've been trying to drive on a road where everyone else is trying to manage the curves and trying along with them when what really rewards is going off road. The shortest path is a straight line. Following the road because everyone else is driving on it is a huge detour.
Anthropic should have source access through contracts for service with microslop.
TBF, with source access, this is really disappointing considering the hype that Fable has been endowed with by the media and the Whitehouse. I would have expected something more like 3-5 minutes. I feel like Opus or Sonnet wouldn't be far behind this number for a rust refactor of 100k-1m lines, even from binary.
The character design is nice on it's surface. Not sure if I want the character to feel plush or smooth. Much of the world has a photographic burned edge look that suggests weathering wear and grime that is missing from Rilo. This along with contrast make him stand out graphically. That said, the distress, detail, realism level and full contrast in the imagery feel very AI which as an aesthetic is quite the turn off these days. Stylistically there's nothing original in the visual language here in the sense of a Mo Willems, Kazuno Kohara, Maurice Sendak or Dr Seuss. Creations for kids play well when the representation feels simple or tactile, fun and less precious. Right now there is a sense of Usborne visual dictionary or a generic children's book brushy illustration that isn't doing anything to endear Rilo to the target audience.
Nit-pick: the carousel stops are weird on my phone.
This is what happens when the president was a reality TV star and a Fox News host runs the military. We usually have competent and qualified people making these decisions.
If you want to be moral you should stop using tech all together. From the materials used to make it to the labor practices used to fabricate and assemble it to the corporate decisions on where to manufacture it to the quantity of diesel consumed to ship it and how that fuel is processed and by whom all the way to what happens to the product when it becomes obsolete. Hard to think of a single piece of that that isn't exploitative of people or the environment. The rot goes all the way down.
Exactly. Tools by definition have users. LLMs (real things) are tools. AI (science fiction) is a "person". When the "AI" demands a wage, I'll consider it real. Until then it's an LLM which is a tool. You wouldn't replace a plumber with a wrench.
I was wondering the other day why we didn't put this level of effort into building a highway across the Atlantic and the Pacific. It seems to me if we just piled bricks made with all the money dumped into AI in the ocean, we could easily have done this. Likewise we could have just build a canal across the United States from the Atlantic to the Pacific. These efforts would have drastically reduced shipping costs and risks but they look impossible (and stupid) on paper so no one tried them.
Why is AI different?
Because it happens in a computer and many people think that makes something easy, like CGI or computer hacking in movies. It's intangible magic and belief is the product sold to investors.
Those employee wages for a product is a 20th century way of making money. Taking investor cash and paying it back with supplier "investments" is how "capitalism" works in today's economy. The labor market and products is just the money laundering cover story for ponzi schemes. It's way faster and more lucrative taking money from the rich in big chunks than taking it from the poor in teensy amounts. This is why everything sucks now, no one cares about the product.
I have been thinking about the similarities between economics and religion since I was in middle school. I believe if our current civilization continues for another millennium we will look at the post-industrial revolution as the second dark age. An era where we believed as much in the promise of riches as they believed in the promise of blessings or an afterlife in the first dark ages. In both eras the wealth of the citizens went to a select few who were eventually corrupted by the influx of money and power. Hopefully the second Renaissance is coming soon.
Muzak isn't what most people choose to listen to. I'm not bemoaning the use/existence of the tool, I'm bemoaning what it did to the internet and taste making. We accept boring competence in web design like we accept weird outlet placement in our homes. The signal it sends is that it doesn't matter and as a result many in this thread (and web users in general) believe it. We've been bemoaning the death of the internet lately. AI gets a lot of displaced credit for this, but the Internet died because we stopped bringing creativity. Not just in look and feel, but in content, business ideas etc. In many cases we let walled gardens limit our ability to be creative for convenience (Facebook pages vs VPS hosting for example). The internet stopped being for consumers and started being for businesses. Developers get easy frameworks/platforms so that businesses get a low price point and the customer gets what they get (as though this wasn't to serve them to begin with). If they pay for it, it must be good, right? Why do something new?
Tailwind is the latest bootstrap. These frameworks were designed to allow people with no skill in design/UI to produce something that passed for attractive. Since most clients are more concerned about time and cost than quality and originality, this approach effectively killed bespoke landing pages and led a lot of UI devs to move away from hand-coding styles to glomming on class names and using a "best practice" framework even though they were capable of writing the CSS from scratch. Now LLMs have trained on this boring cookie-cutter UI work so no one should be surprised that this is what comes out.
Can we stop anthropomorphizing this product? People don't dislike AI because of money. The fundamental disconnect is about value and quality. The value of human efforts and IP is part of that, but the value of potable water and the quality of the content we consume. The value of our time finding content worth consuming and on and on. If AI were exorbitantly expensive those who could afford it may have chosen more wisely what to produce with it.
If IMAX gave away free 70mm film and cameras, we'd all be wading through IMAX off-key grade school concerts. Sometimes gatekeeping is a good thing.
The acting is only as good as the prompter. This isn't a collaboration. A movie isn't just the work of the director, it is the work of everyone involved. This looks good for what it is, but compared to The White Balloon, a famous Iranian film made with few (mostly child) actors and a tiny budget, it feels two dimensional, illustrative and lifeless.
The problem the Arts has with AI is not that AI is good, it's that people don't have the literacy to tell the difference between good Art and bad Art and the best anyone can do in a void of taste is measure it in dollars. How can you place a premium on heartfelt meaning and expression when the facsimile is so much cheaper? If this is about saving money, just don't make or consume anything that maximizes savings. So why did the prompter create this film? To prove his AI mastery? To get contracts for his company? As a logical extension into a different medium for his AI practice? To make a political statement? Or to express something that he's been trying to find a way to express his whole life? Will the next thing he makes not involve computers? With an influx of money from this project would he then make a film "the old fashioned way"? I don't think this is any more about expression than playing Arctic Monkeys covers.
"teams that sit this out while competitors are hustling could be out of business before the dust settles. That’s a real, existential threat."
I would like to see proof of this. Why is it assumed that first to market is all that survives? If this were true there'd be no Apple Computer. Don't let those who want your money bully you into giving it to them.
I predict that companies that have become too dependent on AI workflows will be the ones going out of business when token or request costs rise to fill the gaps left by dwindling investment. At some point ROI will be expected.