sigmarule

Legality !== morality

The ceiling and floor should rise in tandem.

There are levels of silliness, and this has achieved a new one.

What kind of hardware do you have?

Learn what communism is before talking about it.

How reliably exploitable is it, if you know? EternalBlue was fairly close to a point-and-click exploit iirc, the early PoCs I’ve seen for this so far pin things for specific builds/images/configs, one consuming asan output, etc.

> not even right wing

What?

Less so functional ones.

If AI -> Super Intelligence, is ASI -> Super Duper Intelligence? SDI!

This is extremely disheartening to read. What are other privacy-centric, _model-less_ inference providers?

> Islam is also a political and legal system that cannot cohabit with another system (no system can cohabit with another one, you can't have a democracy and a dictature at the same place)

How much of an aversion to objective reality is required to believe this, as you’ve worded it?

Elsewhere as well.

This thinking feels off for this context.

First, there is a counterexample to your point, or a class of counterexamples: scenarios where the company believes the harm to mankind could propagate to harm their ability to sell to mankind.

Which is interesting, of course, considering the “AI may destroy humanity” arguments this topic is centered on are prototypical members of this category.

To be fair, one could argue this counterexample is not actually one, but rather a degenerate case where the good of the shareholders and humanity collapse and converge - in either case, though, the implication here is the same.

It could certainly be the case they are playing these concerns up for more effective use as tactics in unrelated corporate strategies. But failing to consider the possibility of genuine concern being behind this behavior is childish.

> so controlling they are the only US company blacklisted by the US government

Extremely bad example for the topic at hand.

If this is going to factor into my reasoning about the topic at hand, it will surely be a secondary or tertiary consideration at best. Same goes for much of the list in the root comment.

We are discussing the possibility of severe adverse societal/world/human impacts from AI, why should open vs closed source/weights, copyright violations, anti-competitive moves, corporate hypocrisy, etc be so heavily weighted in the discussion? Hell, multiple things in OP’s list are quite literally moves a good-faith (wrt the topic at hand, genuine vs non-genuine concern) actor in such a position would do: closed weights means bad actors can’t abliterate, regulatory control, getting blacklisted by Hegseth’s DOW because they LIMITED acceptable use cases…

I’m not pro- or anti-Anthropic at all, but it has started to annoy me how biased and shaky reasoning gets about this topic on here, it feels like people arguing to fit their existing opinions into today’s hubbubery rather than measured analysis of said hubbubery, which is why I come here.

Question: consider the scenario where RSI is reached internally and internal tests struggle to align or control/contain the model; what are the differences in observables vs what we’re observing today?