im3w1l

These systems in weights are proof of concepts. Surely there is room for optimization in there somewhere.

I meant taking all the weights that are part of the cpu and locking those, and only those.

I don't understand your question.

There is nothing in theory preventing you from training while keeping a subset of weights locked.

The most striking thing in that data for me is how low India is.

I agree. They are fighting the last war.

Okay so I just asked it "What question should I be asking you but I don't because I'm not smart enough to think of it?" Response was kind of interesting I have to say.

There are multiple philosophies regarding this question, and especially historically people were in disagreement. Many companies used to be angry when attacked or probed by white hats. They thought "yes I suppose I should lock my door, but if someone is out trying door handles they should be put in jail". I think there is some logic to that perspective. But clearly that philosophy ended up losing to the "victim blaming" one where everyone is responsible for securing their systems.

Since we are entering a new age, maybe it's time to revisit the question. But ultimately I think we will land in the same place, in fact even firmer than before.

So why don't we just lock up all the whitehats and people behaving suspiciuosly and probing things? Why can't we achieve cybersecurity in this way when it seems to be a common thing in physical security?

And the answer I think is quite simply that there are too many attackers and they are too far away. When the russians and chinese come knocking there isn't much we can do to shoo them away. Their governments will not cooperate in detaining the criminals. Entirely blocking such countries from the internet isn't viable either. And that's why we arrived where we did. Victim blaming because it was the only effective strategy.

And how does AI change this? I think it just creates even more hard to trace or block attackers. If ChatGPT or Claude doesn't find the vulnerability then Deepseek will. That's why using legal weapons will not succeed and why using AI to find and plug holes is necessary.

If something has a lot of downloads it shows a revealed preference that this kind of performance is acceptable.

I'm thinking America (and Europe) was buying soft power at a price it could not sustainably afford. A correction was necessary. Trump took it too far though.

I think it goes the opposite way, starting with a soul and arriving at biological exceptionalism: You start by saying "I have a soul / spirit". Then you extrapolate "things like me probably have a soul / spirit". But since there is no theory of souls, the extrapolation is not based on principles but rather on vibes and guesswork, ending up somewhere like "there must be something weird going on with neurons that somehow create a soul, connect with an existing one or something like that.. maybe.."

> It seems they are still the best judge of whether a proof is useful or insightful though.

How can you be so sure of that? Like we know that human mathematicians can judge usefulness or insightfullnes. But we don't really know whether AI can do it even better. Like I don't think anyone has set up an evaluation of that.

Maybe the real monsters were the friends we made along the way.

How is forcing her to cold turkey that not malpractice?