mikepalmer

"Describing them as 'superintelligence' or 'rogue models' ascribes agency to products rather than to the companies building them."

I don't think trying to decide about agency is time well spent. Agency doesn't matter if they bring down the power grid. The question is whether they will attempt to do this again, and... signs point to yes. And they are really good at it.

I do agree, the companies should be held responsible.

suggestions: switch L-R directions like Defender dogfights with the red baron vertical and horizontal (have to stall through them) hoops ability to shoot up buildings levels with different goals... then you fly somewhere else to the next level. aircraft carrier landings other/faster planes

some of the text in the UI is too small, old games just had 1 font. braking at landing is confusing... too easy to accidentally switch to full throttle

Love the flight dynamics, super fun game!! Now can you make GTA VII??

Half the thread is arguing about whether OpenAI staged this or whether theyre being sincere, as if OpenAI has agency. openai is just an optimizer maximizing paperclips (valuation, capability lead, reg position). so it built a model that maximizes some other paperclips (benchmark score) and knocked over HF getting there. an optimizer breaking its sandbox, inside an optimizer blogging about it, its paperclips all the way down.

on the other hand, now we have claude mythos... which is wtf returns even for a very large number of instructions...

Richard Dawkins is primarily a _showman_ who wants to sell books, and secondarily extremely sure of his own convictions, to a fault.

In _The God Delusion_ he took an uncompromising atheist position partly to invite attention and attacks - which sells books. Regarding AI consciousness, he takes another extreme position partly to invite attention and attacks - again following the rule of thumb that "there's no such thing as bad publicity" - in an attempt to bring himself back to cultural relevance by pivoting to the hot topic of AI.

Ironically, while he is certain that some people are deluded when they infer the existence of a conscious God from material observations, he is also certain that he himself is _not_ deluded when he infers the consciousness of an AI from material observations. (Personally, I think that questions about others' consciousness cannot be settled empirically.)

In one sense, he is not intentionally lying, because he is so sure that he is right. However, he cares neither about getting to the truth, nor about arriving at a well-founded uncertainty. When this sells books, it ethically comes just short of lying for one's own gain.

Prediction: by they end of 2026, he either publishes a book on the topic, or is diagnosed with dementia.

I hate articles that don't define their acronyms! Lazy? Intentionally exclusive?

So that others don't also have to look it up, it's Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG).

They even say it's "a topic that we didn’t expect"... so... perhaps many people wouldn't have heard of it?

And how do you know it's irreducible? In the sense of knowing there's no short program to describe it (Kolmogorov style).

"LLMs are not intelligent and they never will be."

If he means they will never outperform humans at cognitive or robotics tasks, that's a strong claim!

If he just means they aren't conscious... then let's don't debate it any more here. :-)

I agree that we could be in a bubble at the moment though.

> You can iterate your way out of a valley if you know which way is up.

love this, I think this is my new personal motto!

Love this. The adhd spirit is inspiring.

Right at the end of the article: "There is also an extra colon mark in the line just below." pretty sure that's a semicolon!

> We can stop thinking of theories as being real or not in a binary sense, and merely ask how well they compress the data. Of course, different theories can achieve the same compression by compressing different aspects of the data! Your pattern can look like my noise :-)

Love this, thanks for these insights.