StevenWaterman

Yes. You get the model from HF? HF could've edited the weights.

You use an unsloth quant? Unsloth could've edited the weights.

You create a quant yourself? Your version of llama.cpp could've edited the weights.

And then yeah, as you say, the actual inference engine itself, the firmware, even the hardware.

Untrusted is untrusted, abliterated AI or otherwise.

Submarine is trying to keep the pressure out, air tank keeps it in

That's why it's news

Yep. The optimal amount of crime is nonzero

Kitchen appliances run Linux now. I think the economies of scale might win regardless

Well if becomes law, not doing it is even more untenable

> Who's labor are you demanding there?

OpenAI's

> If somebody doesn't want to give you the food they've grown what are you going to do about it?

Well, die probably. That's why people are upset.

There is a disappointing lack of revolutionary spirit, to value labour directly instead of for the things it provides us.

Demand food, shelter, leisure, purpose. Jobs are one (honestly pretty bad) implementation of that

It is, but the statement goes further than that and says they use no gen ai at all in making their games. Which feels unnecessary, unless they mean just in the art and writing, which feels misleading

Yes, you can use constrained decoding

Cool I stand corrected, I had asked an openai model (probably sol?) and got much worse answers, broadly:

- Listing the reasons why Hollywood claimed to want to law, like not giving premature ideas that a movie would flop, without pointing out how much Hollywood benefits from the information symmetry

- Saying yes the gratuities affect pay but not as straightforwardly as you would expect, quoting the "all gratuities go to staff" while ignoring the fact that can and does mean paying the labour bill the company would have to pay anyway

I would be happy with the answers you linked. Which I'm now realising demonstrates the point you actually made. I read "I use Claude" as context not as a conditional.

I didn't realise there was such a difference on this. We need a "willing to ignore official company information and point out paltering" benchmark.

If there is a genuine conspiracy, it (edit: not Claude evidently) will take their claims at face value. A couple I've run into recently:

- why did Hollywood lobby for box office receipts to be added to the onion futures act

- do gratuities on cruise ships actually increase crew pay

In both cases it went to the official source and repeated their statements, without thinking about the fact it was blatant paltering. Only after I pointed that out did it go digging deeper and realise it was more complicated (and less favourable for Hollywood / cruise lines) than it had said

Which I'm assuming is a consequence of the post-4o anti-delusion anti-conspiracy training

You can stop it refusing but you can't make it tell you things that aren't in the training data