kalkin

A few people putting misinformation on the Internet - which isn't restricted to AI crawlers in any way, even the new disclaimer is something an AI model is likely going to notice more easily than a human since they read faster - is not going to stop AI capabilities from advancing.

We're in "something must be done; this is something; therefore it must be done" territory here except usually the something in question is merely useless and not directly harmful to bystanders in the way this proposal is.

Just to be clear, you're proposing that we poison the internet with misinformation - which is just as misleading to humans using traditional information retrieval tools as to AIs - until it's completely unusable, and this will be good because it's bad for AI, and everyone who is misled in the meantime is acceptable collateral damage?

Here I'm quoting from the website:

> It should go without saying that you should never publish fake content. While my experiment relied on tens of thousands of unverified stats, I ran it in order to share the results with the public, and the website, while still live, now carries a disclaimer.

"now carries a disclaimer" sure suggests it didn't, so "you should never publish fake content" really doesn't seem like a standard the author actually held themself to.

I'm not making an argument for a single centrally-managed trust store. The thing that seems most obviously bad to me here, as a non-crypto-expert, is that any CA can issue a certificate for any domain. This is probably made worse because there are hundreds of CAs, and AFAICT functionally every trust store trusts all of the same ones.

I don't know how we fix this, but it does seem like a big problem.

This isn't, like, one misbehaving client. It's the way the ecosystem has evolved. GP didn't specify whether they were criticizing the standard or the ecosystem more broadly, but even if they were criticizing the standard, it's pretty fair to evaluate a standard at least partly based on how it gets implemented in practice. There's a reason cryptography tools for the last decade or more have been focused on being misuse-resistant.

Neat, never heard of those. I'm curious how this works with, like, acks, and also whether there's any public prior art for anyone having trained an LLM beyond one.

I'm curious how you would airgap a datacenter-scale training run. No reading training data from a cloud store, someone from OpenAI flies out to Abilene or whereever with a suitcase full of SSDs? When researchers in SF write code for a new RL environment, they ping somebody who sticks it on a flash drive and walks over to the server rack with the GPUs? Has anyone ever trained an LLM like this?

Maybe you don't mean a literal airgap, you just mean configuring Internet access off. But... they did that. That's why the agents had to hack Artifactory to get it...

Recall that multiple of the Chinese LLM providers got caught sending at least some of their queries to Claude. That would be a pretty funny way to get caught in turn doing something by the US government.

Why's that?

Is social media much better in 2026 now that there's been such a backlash against moderation?

The article says that scores began drifting down around 2012. Gemini is telling me that NAEP peaked in 2013. Elsewhere in this thread there's a claim of an inflection point around 2018 in PISA, which eyeballing Gemini's numbers lines up with NAEP.

Does this correlate with the racial proportion data?

"roma aeterna" is also the sort of alias that's associated with a particular set of political views. (Not conclusive! But a rational thing for someone to notice.)

Honestly I would find a certain satisfaction in a world where the next Democratic administration takes away Fox broadcast licenses, forbids use of Oracle by any government contractor unless Ellison hands CBS over to Rachel Maddow, and tells Bezos that Amazon is going to be banned from public roads unless the Washington Post front page has positive stories every day. But I doubt the same is true for the many pro-Trump people who complained vociferously about Biden officials expressing preferences to social media companies because of the merely implicit threat that they might take government action of some kind if they weren't listened to.