>the agents haven't seen the ceiling as far as improvements can go.
Interesting! Agents are the presumed bottleneck for recursive self-improvement.
>Scare tactics are the old salesman pitch
People keep implying this, but I've never seen a concrete past example of a product that was sold by scaring customers about it.
"The equities here could not be more one-sided. Defendants admit that they provide a service without fully knowing how it works. This is not just any service. It is one that Defendants themselves concede poses an existential risk to the continued survival of humankind. Defendants claim they cannot stop barreling forward with their potentially civilization-ending endeavors unless they are forced to do so by the government. They have asked the government to tie them to the mast. Plaintiff brings good news to the Defendants: The Florida Attorney General is answering your cry for help with a motion to enjoin you from harming Floridians with your reckless, unacceptably risky product."
Source: https://www.myfloridalegal.com/sites/default/files/plaintiff...
I legitimately don't think there has ever been anything like this. You suppose this is just a ploy to strengthen their IPO??
>catapulted Open AI to the moon essentially
I see you doing serious mental gymnastics here. Consider the possibility that people invest because their numbers are good, and their numbers are good because their product is useful?? I mean, that is Occam's Razor.
>I do not see any evidence that models are going rogue, or that agents are going rogue.
Here's the evidence: https://www.dwarkesh.com/p/openai-huggingface
And no, just because it could've been prevented with the benefit of hindsight does not make it any less of an instance of "going rogue". In my tiger analogy, that would be like saying that the cub is not aggressive because it could've been held with a stronger leash: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49859564
Interesting! Agents are the presumed bottleneck for recursive self-improvement.
>Scare tactics are the old salesman pitch
People keep implying this, but I've never seen a concrete past example of a product that was sold by scaring customers about it.
"The equities here could not be more one-sided. Defendants admit that they provide a service without fully knowing how it works. This is not just any service. It is one that Defendants themselves concede poses an existential risk to the continued survival of humankind. Defendants claim they cannot stop barreling forward with their potentially civilization-ending endeavors unless they are forced to do so by the government. They have asked the government to tie them to the mast. Plaintiff brings good news to the Defendants: The Florida Attorney General is answering your cry for help with a motion to enjoin you from harming Floridians with your reckless, unacceptably risky product."
Source: https://www.myfloridalegal.com/sites/default/files/plaintiff...
I legitimately don't think there has ever been anything like this. You suppose this is just a ploy to strengthen their IPO??
>catapulted Open AI to the moon essentially
I see you doing serious mental gymnastics here. Consider the possibility that people invest because their numbers are good, and their numbers are good because their product is useful?? I mean, that is Occam's Razor.
>I do not see any evidence that models are going rogue, or that agents are going rogue.
Here's the evidence: https://www.dwarkesh.com/p/openai-huggingface
And no, just because it could've been prevented with the benefit of hindsight does not make it any less of an instance of "going rogue". In my tiger analogy, that would be like saying that the cub is not aggressive because it could've been held with a stronger leash: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49859564