pizza234

Wrong. Every kernel from 4.4 onward is affected until the fixed releases (5.10.272, 5.15.223, 6.1.190 and so on).

It depends on who attacker and defender are.

Excluding the modern equivalent of a script kiddie, even a "budget" attacker will have for sure invested enough to run a serious model (GLM 5.3 in this case, which requires hundreds of GB of RAM).

On the other hand - the defense - there is a large spectrum, and that's where the problem lies. There are surely companies that can defend themselves (either via cloud solution with granted cyber capabilities, or on local powerful machines), but there is a large amount of people that don't even know how to run a local LLM, let alone compile a program like Firefox.

The argument is that we're istinctually biased when assessing whether an entity is what we consider intelligent/living, or not.

It'd be simpler in the post to contrast, say, an "electronic" alien driven by AI, versus a syntethic machine, made by humans, with the same (hypothetical) AI; we'd istinctually recognize the former as intelligent/living, but not the latter.

The post is essentially retelling the carbon chauvinism concept.

This experiment was agreed with the managing editor of the multidisciplinary and open-access journal IEEE Access, and IEEE itself - it was red teaming, essentially.

Yampolskij made the analogy of an Einstein in a cage. The problem is not to contain Einstein, but rather, to contain Einstein while still extracting utility: this is not possible long-term.

So much for all the people stating (foolishly) that the HuggingFace incident was not a big deal because OpenAI's containment was a "wet paper bag". This misses the point: AIs will get better and better, and containment will be harder and harder.

It's 100% sure that at some point, AIs will attempt to cross airgaps.

> But that of course is only as it relates to language. Which isn't at all the primary function of the brain and driver of it's experience.

The same applies to LLMs: we know how they produce language, but the underlying processes that enable it may themselves constitute a form of intelligence.

> Not truthfulness; correlation and consistency

LLMs may learn from correlations and consistency, but that's separate from developing internal representations of what they believe is true, which is precisely what the paper provides evidence for.

"Believe" is of course not in the strictly human sense.

> When are people going to stop anthropomorhizing these things and accept that they're bullshit machines?

Well, anthropomorhizing is actually a fitting way of thinking AIs: they lie like humans do.

I've personally tried to do use a tablet in a productive way for the child, and it's all about the apps rather than the tablet itself. Tablets for children (Android knockoffs, essentially) provide what's needed, that is, account controls.

Problem is: there is a limited amount of apps that are genuinely fun and educative. If Amazon wanted really to do something truly educative for children, they'd build a whole market for it, the marketese I see in the article doesn't support that.

> How do you approach is this with your kids?

Regarding my kids: high priority, wide/curated choice (not in terms of restriction, but in terms of actively finding things they may like), accompanied learning, and, crucially, starting from a very young age. It's pretty much standard parenting, that is, one gets out what one puts in.

By the time children start to pressure for this type of devices (say, 10/12), they will have learned to enjoy books and more creative activities.

> If you think this is a bad idea, please tell me why, happy to discuss.

There are several reasons. The most important one is that children (ab)using highly stimulating devices don't learn to be absorbed by or find reward in less stimulating ones (most importantly, books). It's exactly the same risk as giving addictive drugs to adults.

This is not theory. Just look at children whose parents give them mobile phones/tablets as pacifiers - they become easily restless.

The intellectual argument is also important. Gamified learning is nice on paper, but one can imagine what children are actually going to play.

Related to another post: the difference between a child and an adult who plays videogames is that the latter has (hopefully!) learned "slow" skills, so they can choose pastimes like this deliberately.

Having said that, I'm for forbidding children from using this type of thing, but it's a very dangerous slippery slope, and there's lots to work on before that step.

Adult video game player here, happy to discuss why you think that's a problem.