peddling-brink

Genuinely though, you're probably better off with an actually airgapped computer. Buy a $300 oldish dell or lenovo that you can slap ubuntu on to. Single purpose, no gaming, no email. If you keep it off the net, updates aren't needed. Sign transactions completely offline.

Keep the seed phrase safe. Use actual dice to generate it. Put a chunk of it into your wallet, a chunk into your password manager, a chunk in your attic or in a book, etc. Never type it into an internet connected computer.

Oh and, never tell anyone about how much crypto you have.

This is reasonably safe, and reasonably within the capabilities of a non cryptography nerd.

An intern told them about the Hack My Bitcoin competition.

Not your keys, not your crypto. Use a nice safe hardware wallet. Just check for extra SIM cards first, and audit the key generator.

You're missing the forest for the trees. The less than amazing physics isn't the point.

When you have a conversation, you have an idea in your mind of how the conversation is going to go. You predict what the other person is going to say before they say it.

When you are driving, you predict what the other drivers are going to do, you predict what signs say, how long you have until the green. If you see two red lights attached to the back of a car flash on, you may predict that the car is about to slow down and you start slowing down before their speed has changed.

Forget video games and movies. I believe these models will be that inner predictive model for robots.

Your expectation is the point, not the physics. I'm not arguing that their model has an amazing grasp of physics. I'm arguing that this can be used as a predictive internal model for a robot.

You seem to be coming from the position that the benevolent, independently thinking, fully aligned AI has graced humanity with a forever gift. But actually it's a privately owned company, built on the collective of human intelligence, apparently stealing from active research and blessing a small few with partial credit.

There are ways to do what they are doing ethically. But this isn't it.

How often do things in the real world not behave exactly as you expected them to?

I feeling I get from this is that this could be the mental model for a robot in the real world, continuously corrected by actual events.

We all have a world model in our heads of what we think is going to happen, we adjust quickly (or not) based on what does. This is pretty incredible stuff.

Go ahead and send me your work outputs in real time. If I finish your work before you, I might give you partial credit.

But that was the whole article. Their exfiltration of data to Beijing, wasn’t. And it was told to build something to monitor against exfiltration attempts, shouldn’t it try one? It wasn’t sensitive data, it wasn’t even data, it was a test string. Everything they described was very benign.

Should the model have asked for an endpoint to test against? Probably yes, but this is not a very large model and the largest frontier models regularly do things like that without asking me.

They asked it for a detection against exfiltration attempts. Sending a test file out to the Internet sure looks like testing an exfiltration detection.

They claim that it read the DNS records and what was in tmp first. Again, all things that would be very reasonable to do when designing building and testing an exfiltration detection system out of tmp. It did not try and send the contents of the computer to Beijing.

This claim is absolutely overcooked.

> most people are just speedrunning notetaking apps in JavaScript frameworks.

I feel seen. But seriously, my app, with my preferences, written by a semi-trustworthy entity that isn’t trying to shove ads down my throat. That’s really great.

I think the point is more about the intelligence gathering rather than the tampering.

Make them block you.

Yes, if only I could math, then the food cravings would stop..

It was “trusted” input, they validated the signature and everything.