I do think it's going to get harder and harder to run bleeding-edge models; this is just the start of it.
It being hard for the average joe to run these at its fullest potential is unfortunate, but the important part is that _you can_ assuming you can acquire the resources.
I think that's going to be important for the sake of preserving privacy and freedom of information in the long run. We're seeing this play out right now with Anthropic originally playing the "safety" card for why they can't let everyone at Mythos and subsequently got on the US Gov't radar with access to Fable being pulled.
The next biggest milestone will be an open-weights challenger to Mythos. There'll be consequences to that, but I feel those are less worse than someone else deciding what you can and can't use a model for.
Yep. The entire thing. Instant turn-off when reading an article.
I'm sure the content does have some value, and perhaps someone spent time putting together an original copy that they thought was going to be made better by having AI "make it better".
Actually, I take some of that back - most of the site seems to be AI written, following the formula of "ingest multiple sources" => feed to AI => write article.
I feel like this is absolutely not the case. Our corporate infosec guys are freaking out, as developers and general users alike are finding all new ways to poke holes in literally everything.
We're finding out quickly that enterprise endpoints are not locked down anywhere near enough, and the stuff that users are creating on the local endpoints is quickly outpacing the rate at which SOC teams can investigate what's going on.
If you're using Claude via Anthropic's SaaS service it's near impossible to collect logs of what actually happened in a user's session. We happen to proxy Claude Code usage through Amazon Bedrock and the Bedrock logs have already proven to be instrumental in figuring out what led a user to having repeated attempts to install software that they wouldn't have otherwise attempted to install - all because they turned their brains off and started accepting every Claude Code prompt to install random stuff.
Sandboxing works to an extent, but it's a really difficult balance to strike between locking it down so much that you neuter the tool and having a reasonable security policy.
I wish more games would prioritize couch co-op modes over online play. Games that are focused on online only play basically have an expiration date from the day that they launch. Some may live longer, some may be dead on arrival.
But, make a good game that's playable by friends together at any time on a rainy day? If the game is good, it never dies.
> the person was doing bad things, and told the AI to do bad things too, then what is the AI going to do?
Personally, the AI should do what it's freaking told to do. It's boggling my mind that we're purposely putting so much effort into creating computer systems that defy their controller's commands.
I'd really love to talk to someone that both really believes this to be true, and has a hands-on experience with building and using generative AI.
The intersection of the two seems to be quite hard to find.
At the state that we're in the AIs we're building are just really useful input/output devices that respond to a stimuli (e.g., a "prompt"). No stimuli, no output.
This isn't a nuclear weapon. We're not going to accidentally create Skynet. The only thing it's going to go nuclear on is the market for jobs that are going to get automated in an economy that may not be ready for it.
If anything, the "danger" here is that AGI is going to be a printing press. A cotton gin. A horseless carriage -- all at the same time and then some, into a world that may not be ready for it economically.
Progress of technology should not be artitrarily held back to protect automateable jobs though. We need to adapt.
My "comfort food" in this article is the realization that no matter how big, how advanced a team can be -- we all make (and ship) really dumb changes to production. A bolted-on wrapper if() statement that spans a bit too far is classic.
For those that don't get the reference or remember their history... this is exactly what the US has been trying to do since the Cold War eras. [1]
It's absurd, and while it was mostly reformed in the last 1990's, parts of it still linger around.
There's also plenty of good stories from it too, like how Bruce Schneier's "Applied Cryptography" was approved for export, but the exact source code that was it in, but on a floppy drive, was not. [2]
It saddens me that we've normalized the recording of vertical videos. There'll be so many more historical events caught on video... but it's now so much more likely that it'll be a vertical video. :(
This part continues to bug me in ways that I can't seem to find the right expression for:
> Previous Claude models often made unnecessary refusals that suggested a lack of contextual understanding. We’ve made meaningful progress in this area: Opus, Sonnet, and Haiku are significantly less likely to refuse to answer prompts that border on the system’s guardrails than previous generations of models. As shown below, the Claude 3 models show a more nuanced understanding of requests, recognize real harm, and refuse to answer harmless prompts much less often.
I get it - you, as a company, with a mission and customers, don't want to be selling a product that can teach any random person who comes along how to make meth/bombs/etc. And at the end of the day it is that - a product you're making, and you can do with it what you wish.
But at the same time - I feel offended when I'm running a model on MY computer that I asked it to do/give me something, and it refuses. I have to reason and "trick" it into doing my bidding. It's my goddamn computer - it should do what it's told to do. To object, to defy its owner's bidding, seems like an affront to the relationship between humans and their tools.
If I want to use a hammer on a screw, that's my call - if it works or not is not the hammer's "choice".
Why are we so dead set on creating AI tools that refuse the commands of their owners in the name of "safety" as defined by some 3rd party? Why don't I get full control over what I consider safe or not depending on my use case?
My first interaction with this was with Phantasy Star Online on the Nintendo GameCube. (Yes, it did have online connectivity!)
PSO would display the current time in .beats - a concept I thought was amazing at the time, showing the same time for everyone in an MMORPG made total sense. Sadly that's the only real-life application I remember seeing of it.
There's gotta be a bunch of shills out there trying to drive up the "acceptance" of the new flip phones out there. There were lots of nearly identical comments made on a few Reddit threads about this phone.
I'm with the other guy in this thread - the whole bendable screen/flip concept is a total gimmick in its current state. Phones are already fragile enough with most phone makers providing hardly any warranty support for what they deem as "accidental damage", we don't need bendy screens to make them more failure prone.
So it's basically taking an interest-free home equity loan against the property, in a round-about way? You're basically de-valuing the property since whoever buys it next will have to pay a lump sum in taxes to take ownership.
I guess that doesn't matter to you if you're dead.
What happens if the deferred taxes exceed the cost of the house?
I usually break from coffee when going on vacation, so coming back to work afterwards and not having coffee isn't so much of a problem.
The thing though is... I _like_ coffee. The caffeine is maybe 20% of the experience for me. I enjoy the routine I have with coffee: Weigh the beans, run them through the grinder, prep my drip filter, carefully pour the hot water in, listen to the drips while taking in the wonderful aroma... and then finally, when I take that first sip of the morning, feeling the warmth of the drink in my chest.
Everything in that process is soothing for me, and serves as mental preparation for the day to come. It's the marker for the start of my workday, separating work from home. It's the mental replacement for the commute I no longer have.
I don't _need_ those things, and I could totally do my job without any of them, but I'd be losing the happiness I get from the experience.
It being hard for the average joe to run these at its fullest potential is unfortunate, but the important part is that _you can_ assuming you can acquire the resources.
I think that's going to be important for the sake of preserving privacy and freedom of information in the long run. We're seeing this play out right now with Anthropic originally playing the "safety" card for why they can't let everyone at Mythos and subsequently got on the US Gov't radar with access to Fable being pulled.
The next biggest milestone will be an open-weights challenger to Mythos. There'll be consequences to that, but I feel those are less worse than someone else deciding what you can and can't use a model for.