Traster

In fact it would be far more interesting if it happened over the course of hours/days/months, because that would be an indication that they managed to remain undetected for a long period of time.

It's kind of interesting that they're releasing this, because anyone with access to the OpenAI RestAPI has probably already vibe coded an equivalent to this. It's a trivial thing to bootstrap.

To be fair, I don't think they do want you to be excited. They have a REST API. It does the obvious things a REST API would do with OpenAI - lets you interact with openai models via a REST API. This is a CLI for it. There's really nothing to describe that isn't in the name, it's the CLI for the OpenAI Rest API. If you don't already care about the REST API then this isn't really for you.

As a man in tech, it's quite easy to just completely miss this behaviour. It's very easy to overlook. Especially since there are often very few women, and the women that are around aren't likely to trust you enough to tell you what's actually going on. One of the senior engineers I worked with literally came to me after an interview she was conducting and was like "Yeah we can't hire that guy", why? because he got aggressive when a female engineer (who was literally interviewing him for a job!) corrected him on his approach to a coding problem.

And it's a mine field, because it's also not helped by some of the companies I've worked at - big companies - who literally had quotas for hiring from "diverse" backgrounds. It doesn't matter what you do, if you put in those top level targets, atleast some of the idiots in your management chain are going to take it as "just hire a woman" and 1 bad woman is the justification for 1000 mediocre men to go on a rant.

I find it funny she complains about being called "guys". When I was at uni we were in the meeting with the head of the department, a group of 6 of us. He goes "So guys <pauses> <creepily turns to the one woman in room> and lady". And then goes on to explain to us he does that because a woman once complained because he kept on saying "guys" when he was talking to a mixed group of people. It was genuinely unbelievable that he thought that was acceptable. But then he also explained that sub-10% of the department was women because they "wouldn't lower their standards".

Europe is going to be just as worried about using US models for large parts of government related functions and they're going to feel alot better about open source self-hosted chinese models than US models which can literally get turned off on a whim by Trump. They'd prefere home grown models if they can, but if they can't they'll go self-hosted and that'll be Chinese at this rate.

I hope this gives people a nice illustration of how absurd the claims are here. Mass incarceration, the removal of their right to self-determination, military occupation, forced re-education camps. A plan to remain enforcing this punishment on unborn future generations of Gazans....

And not a single word on the land currently occupied and being expanded on by Israeli settlers and the Israeli military in contravention of international law. Or sorry did I misunderstand, does the military occupation also put those settlers on trial in the Hague?

What is your expectation of how the civilian population of Gaza are meant to live after this? You can repeat your propaganda all you like, but what is the actual outcome you expect from this? In five years time, is this land occupied? By the same population that was displaced, or by Israelis? Or by no one?

That is a staggering level of incompetence.

I'd be kind of surprised if OpenAI were really doing this deliberately because a whole bunch of their execs come from Meta, and all those guys learned the hard way.

First: You don't want to leak information about your users to advertising networks because it's going to leak, get back to your customers, they're going to figure out you're doing it and get really angry.

But second and more importantly - it's a much better business model to collect that data for yourself, keep it in house and then you control how you use that data to target ads which gives you a massive competitive advantage in selling ads because you have unique targeting data.

The way meta does this now is the model, they don't give the advertiser a list of the people you're going to show the advert to, the advertiser gives you a list of characteristics they want to hit and meta decides who those people are.

It's often more useful to think about incentives than try to look for evidence. Even before AI is was relatively well known that "google is dead" and you couldn't research products using google because it was all just SEO slop, so instead people were googling "X product reddit" for recommendations on like menswear, or tools or whatever they were thinking about buying. And you just think to yourself, well yeah, if I were trying to drive sales for my brand, I would be astro-turfing on reddit. And what's the incentive that reddit has to stop this happening? They don't really sell effective ads, so it's not competition, it drives engagment, and the people really responsible for stopping this (if anyone is) are the moderators, who are unpaid and so are eminently bribe-able.

Everyone understands that pretty girl on instagram who has 300,000 followers is getting paid to show that make up in her stories, why on earth would you think the guy with 300,000 karma posting his fits on /r/malefashionadvice isn't getting the same?

Hang on, are our kids learning from AI agents? Do we have a child alignment problem? Do we need to put our kids in a sandbox. At this rate our kids are going to out live us, I for one, am panicking.

No one has actually said that Dana White is a bad business man. It's just very difficult to believe that's the reason he was appointed to the board of a social media company on the same day that Donald Trump was inaugurated. If he was so consequential why wasn't he named to the board on Jan 7th 2021? I think we know why.

I put this firmly in my category of "Bitcoin Millionaires". Well, yes, technically, if you had noticed at the time, and you had sued them and they had lost (which they might not, it seems he knew the paperwork was a mistake) then you would have had 9,375 more shares, and then if you'd kept them you'd have a billion dollars more worth of Nvidia stock.

Here's a question though - you were given 15,625, so are you a billionare? Do you have those shares? Probably not. So what's makes you think that if you'd got those extra 9k shares you would've kept them?

It's the same as the Bitcoin millionaires, yes, you had 50 bitcoin in 2012 you'd be rich now. But the vast majority of those people sold their bitcoin long before it went up (or bought a pizza with it) and a big chunk of those who didn't got Mt Goxed or BitFinxed or FTX'ed, or got hacked, or lost their hard disk with their private keys etc. etc. etc.

In the UK we have the laws around how government documents of historical value go into the national archives after 20 years, documents with personal information are held longer (up to 100 years). I could see a good argument for the Snowden archive to be automatically decrypted and published after 100 years on a similar basis for it's historcial value.

I think the answer to what happened is really straight forward though - they published as much of it as they could, what they published is probably pretty representative of other stuff in the archives and there's no news value to publishing 100 variations of the same story. If they published 1% of the archive, but the other 99% is just a million details about the same basic decisions then I don't think it matters much. It's also a really slow and painful process to make sure you're protecting the identities of people.

Having said that, I could see some value in a team taking a privately hosted open source AI model, feeding into it the archive and any related news articles into it and asking it if there's anything newsworthy that we missed.

I view this very much as the same trick Silicon Valley pulled with Uber. "We're a technology business! Ignore the fact we're playing employees less than minimum wage and using VC money to force out competition to set up monopolies".

"We're creating the machine god! Ignore the fact that our companies are stealing IP and have directly violated several federal hacking laws and should be in jail". Literally the defence seems to be "well it wasn't us it was our computer software that did it". But all hacking is done with computer software.

So why don't we stop talking about possible future crimes against humanity and just start by prosecuting the actual crimes these companies have committed so far.

You know how you get alignment? Through incentives, and "Your CEO is going to be sent to a maximum security federal prison for hacking" really aligns incentives very well.