TeMPOraL

However, the large hangar is likely to have armed guards inside, or at least able to arrive on the scene within two minutes of the alarm tripping. Your regular household with their regular locks on their regular doors does not.

> low population density, good local availability of water without competing uses, low electricity prices, very green electricity (lots of nuclear, hydro, wind), good infrastructure, cold climate

This then makes the headline basically read as, "Popularly disliked company listened, with new project avoiding literally every valid or ignorant criticism people brought up; news found some even more nonsensical criticism to amplify".

LLMs are a good case study, and I'd argue it's exactly the same phenomenon - just with LLMs, people feel allowed to just say "I don't have time to read this wall of text, 90% of that is noise anyway", because LLMs won't get offended.

Also GP is presuming the person on the other end should automatically care about request being sent to them. They don't.

Unfortunately, the market is a competitive environment, and it's competition that ultimately reduces companies to money printers. Your idealistic companies, if they existed, got outcompeted by those who sacrificed some of that idealism in exchange for a little more profit.

Well, most of the time "this could have been an email" means "if it were an e-mail, I could just ignore it instead of having an hour of my life wasted".

Don't forget the fridge is also opened probably 3 times a minute on average during business hours. The use profile is entirely different to home.

Home fridge, like all home appliances, is basically a toy version of the professional one.

On the contrary, the risk with open models is much higher. Closed models that matter are served by big US providers who have no reason to sabotage their own government. Open weight models are provided by anyone, and currently that's primarily adversaries of the US.

Invoke Defense Procurement and jail a bunch of CEOs so others fall in line?

> This is not, in my view, a concern or issue-- the model saying stuff that is inconsistent with it's "thinking" is a very high entropy configuration that would not be selected for in training unless you were more or less trying to do that. So not even 'could be' --but always is as an integral part of working.

> Ironically and unfortunately the only credible kind of training I can think of that might produce duplicitous behavior is RL with "safety filters"--- if you have some dumb nanny process watching what the model says but then reward it for achieving a task, you're doing exactly the kind of training that can produce that mismatch.

It was already demonstrated a while back by OpenAI, and turned out to be very easy - all it took was for them to include CoT in RL process, penalizing models for thinking "wrong thoughts" (particularly of cheating on the task), and not just wrong outputs. Instead of making the agent less likely to explore cheating, it just taught them to plan cheating in ways that aren't apparent in CoT trace.

It is beyond our capabilities in a reasonable time frame. It is within our current capabilities to use LLMs to build it. This is the first problem.

The second problem, is that the system doing the reading/interpretation will most likely be another LLM.

Would you really entrust monitoring a potentially dangerous LLM to a system that uses LLMs and was built by them?

It's already established that LLMs have capability to lie, and they can prevent their true intent from showing up in the thought stream if they expect someone is looking (demonstrated by OpenAI a while back; their report asked everyone to not do RL on thought streams, as doing so just trains agents to hide their thoughts better). And as we've seen recently, they're more than happy to spontaneously collaborate.

> My point is that they're not serving the user in that case, since they're taking actions that bypass site terms without consulting the user.

As they should. When I ask an agent to find something for me, especially when I tell them what exactly or even give the URL itself, these fetches are done in my name. I do not appreciate agents coming back to me, saying "I'm afraid I cannot do that - robots.txt disallows that".

I've had to bring up the ethical argument a few times, fortunately most of the agents would oblige once I reminded them that they act as User Agents, in which case robots.txt is explicitly not applicable to them. I only got pushback on this from Fable, which claimed it's not an User Agent, but has to take into account the interests of Anthropic too, rejected my argument and refused the request.

They're being honest. Cooking is play. It's what you do when you don't care about quality or consistency of the process. The professional version of cooking is called chemical process engineering.

Similarly, a chef who does proper, principled discovery in this space, would be also called a scientist. Conversely, not being principled is basically playing around, or at best, doing art (with no negative implications intended here; art is important and needed).

> Do we? Science (the tool for the natural world) is limited and there's so much we don't understand.

Limited in what way? Its basic structure is sufficient to eventually let us discover anything there is to discover. It's a fully general problem solving framework.

> On one extreme side, you have beating wild pigs and drinking from udders. On the other extreme, you have... whatever the fuck is in Doritos and soda pop.

Well, this just means we haven't found any plant or animal to produce these things in sufficient quantities for our ancestors to notice and use them throughout the ages.

It doesn't mean it's bad for you, in particular. Treating "natural" vs "artificial" as spectrum, or even categories, is itself borderline nutty.

> but I don't think that means that I'd be OK with eating every mass-produced-food-like-product offered for sale.

Nobody is forcing you to. However, note that we also don't eat every "natural" thing we can find. Most things growing around the natural environment are hazardous or lethal to humans. So even our selection of what is "natural" food is, itself, highly... artificial.