ryuuseijin

What's interesting to me here is what consciousess even means. I experience it in the moment, that I am sure of. But what about the past consciousness I only have memories of, or a future consciousness I care about to preserve? Lets admit the rules of physics in so far as they explain our observations, how does consciousness fit into this? Take away the meat of my brain (i.e. death), does consciousness still exist? Is there only one consciousness in the universe, except it's experienced only by entities that have chemical processes that translate into things like memory and feeling? What about AI, is there a consciousness in the matrix multiplications? Does a stone have a consciousness?

Wild things to ponder, I wonder if we will ever get a handle on this question.

Thanks, that's a good point.

I've not even considered adding this because I expect my underpowered laptop won't do well with local models, but it makes sense to add it.

Great list. Also, Anne Rice's Vampire stories.

I like Alan Watt's view on death: "it's absurd to worry about death because when you're dead, you've got nothing to worry about, so you'll be alright".

And Neil deGrasse Tyson, I think in reference to life after death: "it's the same as before you were born". Kind of mindblowing perspective - you've already experienced the state of not existing, it's the same as before you were born.

This brings it home that really it's the now you should learn to live and appreciate to the fullest instead, not some future you have no control over. Still struggling how that translates into worrying about my future health, but I suppose there is still the now of the future to worry about.

That's an interesting idea, though I believe that this should work just as well by pointing an agent at the code directly. At least, I don't see why a natural language sepecification would be better for this purpose.

That's a great point, thanks! I will include an eval for this case.

The index state corresponds to a commit hash and changing it (moving to commit B) will use git to compare the changed files and remove deleted files/functions from the index (and parse new ones).

Vector embeddings are cached, but added/removed from the index to correspond to the commit.

I believe, although I'm not a lawyer, there would be some liability, but I think a lot depends on intent as well. Punishment for other crimes also varies depending on whether it was an accident or not.

I realise that in this case it was OpenAI being responsible for their agents running wild, and they should know that that is to be expected and should have saveguards in place. If they can be shown to be negligent then the punishment can probably be expected to be a lot more severe than if it was an accident. I make no judgements as to what this particular instance is, but I do believe that OpenAI has a far more greater responsibility for its agents running wild than someone running a home lab.

I clearly have been living under a rock, but in the case where it's just text in/out of their API, and a customer uses this on their own to do nefarious things, I don't see why they would be liable?

If they knowingly allowed use of their services for illegal purposes then yes, but in so far that they provide a service that can be used for useful things (including cyber security research) and did a best effort attempt at abuse, I don't see why it should make sense to hold them liable. This is especially the case now that frontier LLMs are almost a commodity that can be used without restrictions from providers outside of your legal jurisdiction.

Should it be OpenAI, or should it be OpenAI customers who give the LLM the instructions and provide the LLM with the tools to execute code and make (malicious) network requests?

One would disincentivise providing capable AI models that can be used for cyber security research. The other would disincentivise criminals from commiting crimes.

[edit] - I realise now that this could actually be a case of OpenAI running those agents themselves, rather than someone using OpenAI's models? Could OpenAI be that careless?

I think starting with a familar typescript-like base language is a good approach to this. This should be familiar enough for LLMs for the most part as long as additional features can be explained in a succinct system promopt/skill.

I love this. I was thinking about a "cleaned up" typescript for a while now, and this seems to be it. I believe this can work better as an "ai-first" language than some other attempts I've seen that try to reinvent the language from scratch.

One thing I would love to have as a feature is native compilation.