I think it’s possible to observe something and be sure that it’s true in aggregate without being able to accuse any one individual of it. I propose that in those cases, bringing it up in response to an individual is not a good move. It doesn’t sound any less accusatory for being ostensibly about the general public.
Some people like to talk about “some people” snidely, instead of just coming out and saying “GP is bloodthirsty and gets a little thrill [etc].” Because of course, that’s what they mean, but they can’t back it up.
Indeed. I can’t find it, but I swear I knew after reading the announcement, without opening the model card. It stood out because it was so weird. Maybe they changed it before the first snapshot, maybe something else happened, I don’t know.
It was in the announcement, too. I’m 99% sure they edited it after they changed their mind, because I knew about it from reading that, and never opened the model card.
They didn’t get caught, they explicitly said they would do that in the announcement. I think it was both bad and a weird idea, but it certainly wasn’t sneaky.
Carlin didn’t say it was silly, he said it didn’t matter. Religion, communism, fascism were all world-defining ideas, and they very much mattered to those who fought for them and against them. What am I saying, “mattered”. Go check social media, they matter right now.
Agreed. My point was to question the use of “just“ to obscure an incredibly complicated process, which has been shown repeatedly to rely on generalizations that are indistinguishable from world models.
Now, it is true that the world they’re modeling is the world of tokens. But insofar as those tokens, be they text or images or videos, are themselves modeling the real world, LLMs do have a model of the real world.
The United States predates you, and will almost certainly outlive you.
You, an individual with a microscopic lifespan and negligible influence in the grand sweep of history, do not in fact share any guilt for the things your ancestors did, nor do you deserve credit for the greatness they wrought. The United States, however, deserves blame where guilty and praise where worthy for what it did during its lifespan, which expands hundreds of years into the past, and with luck will continue into the future.
> If these claims were indeed serious, they would submit it for independent analysis somewhere.
They have. 40 different companies that have all committed resources to patching their systems based on vulnerabilities found by Mythos. One of them, Google, is a frontier AI lab that pointedly did not say that their own models have found similar vulnerabilities.
> Defense contractors are required to submit their systems (secret sauce and all) for operational test and evaluation before they're fielded.
Does this look something like having 40 separate companies look at the outputs of the system, deciding that it’s real and they should do something about it, and committing resources to it?
At some point, “cynicism” is another word for “lalala can’t hear you”.
The lead story was about the “useless” soldiers in a battle that was won. I think as a minimum effort one should look for an example where the battle was lost? Most companies can only wish their outcomes were as good as the US in World War II.