hamburga

> As he films them from multiple angles, the predominantly English-speaking employees ask the presenter questions such as, "What are you doing?" and "Are you filming me right now?"

Meta employees themselves couldn't tell if he was recording!

Chicago resident here.

Not disputing the methodology, but our state is the nation's leader in tornadoes (by more than a factor of 2) due to Niña/Niño this year, and Chicago spent a few days this summer with the world's worst air quality due to Canadian wildfire smoke.

Obviously, "resilient" ⍯ "unaffected".

>> This raises an important question: if AI models can be misused for cyberattacks at this scale, why continue to develop and release them? The answer is

> Money.

For those who didn’t read, the actual response in the text was was:

“The answer is that the very abilities that allow Claude to be used in these attacks also make it crucial in cyber defense.”

Hideous AI-slop-weasel-worded passive-voice way of saying that reason to develop Claude is to protect us from Claude.

Socrates famously complained about literacy making us stupider in Phaedrus.

Which I believe still does have a large grain of truth.

These things can make us simultaneously dumber and smarter, depending on usage.

But assuming no new models are trained, this competitive effect drives down the profit margin on the current SOTA models to zero.

I’m still waiting for somebody to explain to me how a model with a million+ parameters can ever be interpretable in a useful way. You can’t actually understand the model state, so you’re just making very coarse statistical associations between some parameters and some kinds of responses. Or relying on another AI (itself not interpretable) to do your interpretation for you. What am I missing?

There are a lot of people here who reflexively flag anything remotely close to US politics.

How long until Palantir gets a contract to do the same work for Russia?

AI is definitely a significant force multiplier in many areas. Still, an individual in total isolation has limited agency.

> The argument that persuaded many of us is that people have a lot of desires, i.e., the algorithmic complexity of human desires is at least dozens or hundreds of bits of information

I would really try to disentangle this.

1. I don't know what my desires are. 2. "Desire" itself is a vague word that can't be measured or quantified; where does my desire for "feeling at peace" get encoded in any hypothetical artificial mind? 3. People have different and opposing desires.

Therefore, Coherent Extrapolated Volition is not coherent to me.

This is kind of where I go when I say that any centralized, top-down "grand plan" for AI safety is a folly. On the other hand, we all contribute to Selection.

All it takes for somebody to nuke Atlanta is an atom bomb and an airplane and somebody willing to fly the plane.

I’m being facetious but there ARE ways to decide/act as a society and as subgroups within society that we want to disallow and punish and select out qualities of AIs that we think are unethical.

A single person acting in isolation (no friends, no colleagues, no customers) has very little agency. While theoretically a single person could release smallpox back into civilization, we have collectively selected it out very effectively.