spoaceman7777

No. It's just people who built an identity on the power that their intelligence afforded them. We view that power and the intelligence itself as the same thing, but they're actually separate.

Will AI be unable to produce new conjectures?

Grand fiction requires conflict, suffering, and war, so banning AI is a necessary plot device.

People keep putting the cart before the horse on this one, and the degree to which modern people have been lulled by fiction is quite worrying. Amusing ourselves to death.

I'd guess it's mostly just an artifact of the strength of their Agentic RL environments for those specific domains. If they had the same kind of access to massive amounts of institutional software knowledge, compute infrastructure, and hundreds of millions of users dropping them endless highly technical agent traces, there may have been similar disparities on the agentic benchmarks in other fields.

It's possible that they may have generally capped out for some reason... but, I'd rather be bullish on a new American AI lab making it to first place among western open-weight models that can run on a common consumer device. (Closest in size that's better across that range of benchmarks is Inkling-Small I think, at 276B params, unless I'm forgetting someone.)

The threshold for Microsoft and Apple to actually report vulnerabilities is MUCH MUCH higher than for Linux, and open source as a whole. They generally only disclose issues in Windows and macOS that are quite serious and impactful.

For Linux, the threshold is nearer to the point of it being questionable whether a bug is even exploitable on a real production distro, compiled and run with any sort of sane configuration.

If you scroll past the first 99 pages of explaining how urls work, you'll find the author includes this as its first FAQ:

"""

Was this hacking?

I don't think I'd call it that.

"""

It's really irresponsible to give credence to these increasingly ridiculous claims of "hacking", that almost certainly look like things you yourself have typed into url bars at one time or another, if you are at all competent with a computer.

Do we really wants laws regulating which locations it is appropriate to type alert(1)? Like.. lord.

Do folks have any idea what browser extensions look like? Let alone browser extension development. Anyone here ever read the logs of a production system that actually hosts a service people use?

This is reality. This is how the internet works. And pretending otherwise is either dishonesty or ignorance.

Well. That is insane. O_O Fantastic job!

The moderation team stuff was largely unrelated to tech stuff, and was specifically involved with politics and ideological HR-style cancellation discourse.

One of the most notable actions of the team was managing a protest against defense companies assisting the project.

Its disbanding was just another instance of the well documented, and statistically supported, end of the cancellation committee trend that rapidly took off in 2021, peaked in 2023, and has nearly fully receded into oblivion since then.

The backlash against that trend, while not communicated publicly by most (far-right folks excluded...), has been massive, but handled tactfully, behind the scenes. Always important to remember that the equity-left is only about 20% of Americans, and the US is the global stronghold for such ideals. (That 20% makes quite a bit of noise, which gives many the impression that there are many more than there actually are. The reality is just that most people are polite, and don't want to get involved in discourse where their opinions could lead to them facing dramatic negative consequences.)

The global community has not been supportive of the continuing of the trend. So it's not just pushback from the (largely polite) majority of those in the English-speaking world that gave the whole situation a fair shake.

Anyway, to reiterate: the moderation team's disbanding had just about nothing to do with technical aspects of the project, and it could be argued that its disbanding was potentially a positive sign for stability.

Blocking access only hurts people who follow the rules. Unblocking access lets them compete with those who break the rules.

I think the right choice is pretty clear...

well, i do! >:D ;)

The charge against him is specifically "Stealth canvassing", which, beyond the use of the word "Stealth", is clarified several times as: """Stealth canvassing: Contacting users off-wiki (by e-mail, IRC, or Discord, for example) to persuade them to join in discussions (unless there is a specific reason not to use talk pages)"""

Between calling it "stealth" and specifically calling out email/IRC/Discord, it makes it pretty clear that it is not referring to public platforms.

Iterpreting it as a ban on any public discussion of Wikipedia by Wikipedia editors, anywhere on the public internet, is a very dishonest move by the people involved in that thread, and you can tell the real reason for it by reading the many comments simply lobbing politically charged accusations against him.

Seeing folks over there policing violations of taboos that are enforced by a very small minority of the English speaking world (around 15-25% of the US for the combined equity-progressives and further left groups) makes me worry about this wonderful site, which has taught me so much over the years :(