LordDragonfang

I think you're fundamentally missing the point being made here.

Yes, "-like" is commonly used as a suffix, in which case a hyphen is correct. But describing music as "audio-like" is clearly nonsense (music isn't "like" audio, it is audio), so that's not the sense in which it's being used here.

For clarity, the full sentence is:

> Genie 4 is natively multimodal, enabling audio-like music, ambient noises, and interactive dialogue to be simultaneously generated with the world.

You're confusing PHP the product with PHP the codebase. The former is what is the only relevant part in the security world, where a product is synonymous with its vendor (even FOSS).

You misunderstand me. The work isn't primarily in "securing" the network. It's the hassle involved in the continuous transfer of data from one side to the other (and for a proper air-gap, that transfer only goes one way, which is laughably infeasible here). In my line of work that's mostly software security patches and weekly code transfers, but obviously these labs have multiple orders of magnitude more.

And I don't know how you expect an LLM to do airgapped data transfers. The fact that you even bring that up makes me think you don't actually understand what airgapping entails.

> 3. Why, if this path is so dangerous, these leaders don’t consider alternate paths to building AI. Why are all their investments in this one way to do intelligence? Surely we will benefit from having multiple routes to choose from?

Because it's obvious that the investments are still paying intelligence dividends, and we haven't found a better path yet?

Also, more to the point: if you were familiar with the history of the AI safety debate, you'd know the people most concerned are pretty certain that every path forward is dangerous -- and that current AI is already, by cosmic accident, much more aligned to human values than any other path that was predicted.

As someone who has actually had to maintain multiple airgapped networks in the past and knows the amount of work that's required for that, especially at the scales of data they're working with...

All the armchair cybersec experts claiming they "obviously" should have airgapped are the ones being absurd. Especially in the same breath as claiming the models apparently aren't intelligent enough to warrant such concern.

uBO lite works fine on chrome, I wish posters would stop pretending that Mv3 removed adblockers from chrome

Okay, thank you for posting that. When I commented, the only things I saw in this thread were people saying it would be open "because the previous ones were". My point was that that was insufficient without Black Forest Labs giving a more direct answer.

There's been an increasing trend of previously-open-weight models going closed-source once they reach a certain size (and size is proportional to capital investment). That the latest release will be open-weight is not necessarily a given just because the previous one was.

$200/$400, actually. The $40/$80 licence tier only comes with a year of updates, which should be a complete non-starter in today's security landscape.

> maybe two models should be developed and trained in conjunction that talk to each other, each with different functions and roles, because brains work better this way.

I mean, is that not essentially what a Mixture of Experts model is?

> I wonder if intuition is just a secondary neural net which is currently being added to the agents as we speak

Arguably, intuition is primary neural net, the only thing an LLM has without CoT, it just is spiky so humans only notice where it's below-average and just dismiss the rest as normal. Of course it's going to lag behind in some areas compared to others.

"A social construct" and "not real" are not the same thing. Money, laws, countries, gender, even civilization itself are all social constructs. More importantly, all forms of ownership are social constructs, and that doesn't provide any information as to whether we should respect them or not.

And by constructing that false dichotomy, you're failing to see the actual truth, which is that Intellectual Property is just a legal construct to turn ideas into Capital, with the goal of incentivizing its creation.

Nothing more and nothing less, and all of the normal debates about what should remain Capital and what should be The Commons apply.