ball_of_lint

Order has been great for me so far. I can understand it being difficult/tiring for some, but for those who don't find it so the puzzle design is simply amazing.

I'm about 20h in and agree the story is pretty meh, but that's no surprise coming from Blow.

> malware

> you let it download

Sounds like a terrible strategy to me

From the article:

> Members of the Tor community have asked us to explain how continued collaboration with Mullvad fits with the Tor Project's human rights mission.

> Our decision followed a thorough due diligence process that involved extensive discussions with community members, staff, and the board, a staff survey, and detailed financial analysis and scenario planning.

Tor is not a democracy and doesn't purport to be. The article outlines the due diligence they have already done, and they're writing this as notice to their community, in response to questions from it.

Tor isn't saying 'This speech should not be allowed', they're saying 'This speech is speech we disagree with, and don't want associated with TOR'.

No one has ruled out a suit.

You also have to count the amount of tokens and human time spent afterward to verify these proofs. There's already been some papers retracted and it seems likely to me that there will be many more as people continue digging into the more dubious ones.

Lots of bad reasoning in this article.

So long as your feedback loop isn't slow enough to be taking you out of flow, it's fast enough. Having it be a few seconds vs a few hundred milliseconds mostly doesn't matter for a human, and will matter even less for an LLM.

On macros and DSLs, yes they're cool and even useful sometimes, but most of the software industry is working quite happily without them. And LLMs aren't going to change that because they are best when there's a lot of relevant patterns in their training data. That ends up being a far more important factor in their effectiveness than whether the language itself is token-efficient. It's much easier for an LLM to reason through how to do XYZ in Python where it already knows all the semantics and syntax than it is for it to do it in your DSL it's never seen before. To be clear, it can probably do both but will make mistakes an order of magnitude more in the DSL, and that's what will matter most for the LLM iteration time.

Why that particular substrate instead of a slightly narrower one? Like that would include you and your family but not animals like octopi, dolphins, etc?

That stupidity is happening? Even after the Huggingface hack, frontier labs are using internal models to further their research. i.e. RSI is happening now and we're facilitating it.

To make the the argument that P(doom) is real and worth considering, you don't have to say that a fast takeoff is very likely. You don't have to make the argument that RSI to infinity is going to be super cheap, barely even an inconvenience. You just have to show that it has some non-zero probability. And then you start weighing probability of extinction versus finite, mild discomfort now. I don't think anyone is arguing we should let people starve to slow AI progress, instead just some capitalists make less money soon.

There are arguments against taking P(doom) seriously that lie in something like having exponential (instead of hyperbolic) time discounting of utility (so you can take the entire future of humanity as a finite utility value). Or in saying that P(doom) is zero or infinitesimal.

"Build it and Pray" is the default strategy that we're in, but it doesn't have to be the strategy we choose, and it's unlikely to be the best strategy.

Big fan of Camus; I found The Fall and The Plague to both be stronger books than The Stranger

Can confirm. Have been playing games on Linux for years now and with proton, the vast majority of games just work. And there's protondb to fix up the rest.

The one game I couldn't actually get working was Escape from Tarkhov because it has some windows-only anticheat. I.e. the developers chose to make it not work, not an accident.

Yes, we shouldn't let OpenAI off the hook.

But also, these hacks are shots across the bow for AI alignment and safety research. We're fortunate that hasn't been significant damage already. We have to assume that future models will have even greater hacking ability and be closer to having their own desires/goals.

So while I agree this language choice is wrong in that it shifts blame away from the company, it is right in that we need to treat this as if these models have their own desires, because we cannot yet determine or set what those are in practice.

It's what we know mattered for this model. It doesn't tell us about future models; we already know this strategy is unsound, so it is silly to rely on it.