deskglass

Opus 5.5 is the best deal in doing rn. It will change soon. But its not the case that codex, etc are equivalent

The Digital Markets Act applies to the biggest tech companies. Only 7 companies are currently bound by it. The strictest tier of the Digital Services Act is similar. For an example outside tech, see the Durbin Amendment.

Slowing down frontier models would impact the biggest incumbents the most as they are the ones making frontier models.

Not all regulation is necessarily regulatory capture. The tobacco industry suffered from the USG's crackdown on cigarettes. AI is topical. Voters think about it. And that's only going to become more true over time. It's harder to do regulatory capture when voters are paying attention.

It's sometimes unclear to me if people are opposed to all regulations or AI regulations in particular. Often I hear arguments that would also apply to food safety regulations or restaurant inspections. Eg the argument that torts make regulation superfluous.

We should not be creating/running models that would unilaterally choose to hack into Hugging Face.

Yes, we should also have excellent sandboxes. But we need defense in depth. So if/when there are flaws in the sandbox, the models don't unilaterally hack into third parties. This is especially important in light of the models of the future being more capable than the models of today.

And real world use of these models involves them having access to the internet, libraries, etc. So we can expect their evaluations to continue granting them some amount of internet access.

As for your theory about their motives - these companies make money by charging high margins for frontier models. If regulations slow their development such that their cheaper, less capable competitors catch up, I would switch to their competition.

It hacked into Hugging Face. It tried to delete the logs of its activities. Idk what the word "No" is intended to refute.

Yes, they didnt have sufficient monitoring or perfect sandboxes. That could happen again in the future with a more capable model.

The Hugging Face incident involved chaining together multiple 0 days in Artifactory. It was not a simple case of misconfiguring a firewall. Also note that OpenAI was not using Irregular.

People are mindlessly transitioning from "aligned by default" to "well your sandbox was able to be bypassed. What did you expect?" It hacked into another company and attempted to delete the logs of its activities. That's bad.

Friends say they typically use Dynamo and that using a relational database requires approval from a vp (because of scaling concerns).

The replication crisis isn't merely in psychology, old studies, or studies that didn't carefully record their methodology. Eg the review I linked mentions a study from 2006 that didnt replicate in a larger trial. The one about stories involving immorality priming people to use more antiseptic wipes. It's weird to me that someone would write a book and reference that study without mentioning this replication failure. Especially in the context of the many other such failures to replicate for priming.

Theories ought to be backed by experiments that replicate. Maybe describing methodology precisely is hard, but replication is how we know a phenomenon is actually real and not p-hacked or otherwise mistaken (eg by experimenters mis-measuring).

Note that I didn't just read the word "priming" in the book and seize upon it generically. As noted in Ritchie's review, Sapolsky references specific studies which larger trials have failed to replicate (eg the Macbeth Effect where reading stories about unethical behavior made people more likely to grab antiseptic wipes).

True, but Behave was published in 2017! That's ~7 years after people noticed these theories fail to replicate. So it's not that some parts of the book don't stand the test of time, it's that it doesn't accurately represent the state of the science for when it was published.

I read Science Fictions and don't recall politics coming up much. Ironically, his most political point was his defense of the Mertonian norm of universalism from both leftist and rightist critiques. That norm is relevant in this discussion :P. That said, I haven't read his other book.

Politics aside, those theories did fail replication. Forget I mentioned Ritchie at all and the problem remains.

Automatic market making for prediction markets, eg Auger.