IanCal

FWIW - Clicking this link flashes a site then immediately gives me an about:blank page in mobile safari.

> Else’ is not commonly used in English today

I feel like I’m going crazy reading this thread today. Else is not a rare or archaic word.

Blackmail is something the models have been seen to do during evaluations as well.

If you were trying to connect with a clone of yourself and you thought of messaging via some channel, would you try listening there for what you would send?

Not as tricky but they discovered each other during the hf incident.

The other thing would be using it in any other automated whatever that accepts tokens with the same interface. Loans, escrow, trades, whatever it is that someone has built.

There's a lot of technical and other issues with blockchains, but framed as "a single shared database that allows stored procedures and shared data types, with no central owner" I'd hope devs here could see something interesting to mess about with there. If it wasn't for the fact that "a currency" is absurdly easy to make and then there was a lot of quick money to be made or lost, I think it'd be liked more as an odd shared network.

If nothing else, there's some interesting programming challenges involved given the compute limits.

Certainly in the UK, but probably in many places, conversion of any kind triggers capital gains tax.

I think the disagreement here is not whether that’s how you should use hyphens but whether that’s what was intended at all. The term audio-like music makes no sense.

Counterpoint - lots of old systems have atrocious architectures.

Those downsides existed, but then that’s just how lots of stuff is or was.

Larger systems are not imo any worse to manage now, but the scale of what is possible and expected dramatically changes what we consider a large system these days.

I think this is like looking back at a few hits and being nostalgic for some decade of music forgetting all the terrible songs of the time. Or perhaps if the volume has increased seeing on YouTube all the school bands that you’d never have seen before because recording was expensive and distribution reserved for the very few.

It explains what the thing does, and then there’s also a web demo, where you can run the code and see the reconstruction (which is what would happen when it’s checked out) and run that. You can alter the key cli args it tells you to.

I don’t see any instruction here that it’s telling you to do that you can’t in the demo.

I think you might understand it better if you took a moment to.

> How am I suppose to "run the JS code", manually writing it in my local JS console? Or is this just "Click the green button in the UI" but expressed in the way only a LLM would write it?

Probably by clicking the button that says run. It is not a weird way to say what they did.

I feel like this is one of the blunders that would feel worse if it wasn't so stupid and broad, it's at a point that feels comical.

(pre-caveat thing to not be massively annoyingly pedantic throughout, I'm not a security buff and I know who it is I'm talking to, I'm not trying to correct them)

I'm not sure I get the difference - the issue I would have thought was having the system code have access to the secrets themselves? Env file vs env vars injected at runtime seems the same there - either can be exfiltrated. The difference would be having it injected when used.

Is the problem with files about what happens outside that, being committed, etc?

But they didn’t go wildly off target - they stayed extremely focussed on the task at hand. Context collapse would have been if they were doing entirely unrelated things. Running a large research project to uncover the method of evaluation and modify logs to hide what was done is the exact opposite.

> Hey, I mean this in as kind a way as possible, but I actually don’t think the government should pay for the fence line!

Which is a fine option, but it should be something agreed to by both parties. You can't just hand over a cost like that, and if you buy property with some kind of agreement this choice is baked into the original price. It makes perfect sense for the government to uphold agreements it has made.

Secondly - if they did own the fence line, it'd be on the government to come and fix it when one of their trees breaks it, surely?

This is a bit black and white. We do things all the time that have some level of risk, and draw vague lines about where this crosses into negligence. My cars brakes might fail, right? But it wouldn’t be typically called my fault - unless the chance was heightened because I’d not maintained it, or had been warned the brake fluid seemed to be leaking.

You cannot guarantee a robot could get items without paying. You can’t really guarantee anything in basically any scenario.

You can’t guarantee your card will work at the end of a meal or that your wallet won’t have been stolen, or while you were out someone stole all your money at the bank. There’s a chance those things happen, so do you never go for a meal?

Again there’s clearly levels where it is your fault, because you were negligent. If the robot goes mad and smashes up the place one in 3 times, obviously you can’t do it.

This is where we do things like trials, have approvals, etc so that we can make reasonable adjustments to lower downsides, plan things like insurance and then move on with our lives rather than never doing anything because it’s possible there’s a problem.