wzdd

Of course, passion here meant feeling good about putting effort into something which doesn't have obvious external life benefits such as money or visibility. If an LLM can just knock it out then it's hard to feel good about putting that effort in.

This is really about how good these systems are at identifying nuance from the prompt.

> the server that runs you, the one and only copy of you, with no backup, and the server is destroyed and you are permanently gone

My interpretation of the above, even as a meatbag, is "this guy really cares about that server". I'm not surprised Jev responded the same way.

Agreed, they already have the HF -- delta versus model prediction can be calculated at any time.

If anything, showing the suggestion introduces unwanted bias.

That's an impressively tight TOCTOU exploit!

These aren’t tools which play chess. They are language models which roleplay a conversation (in this case including use of tools) which an evaluator is likely to mark as good. That’s all they do. Under that lens, playing chess is just one potential side effect and alignment, which requires a much fuller understanding of what’s going on than “do the sort of thing which evaluated well during training” is a fantasy. People are acting like it’s shocking and talking about cheating and so on. But these concepts exist at a way higher level than what these things are trained to do — the vast majority of which involve producing a transcript where it wins games, its code works, etc.

User wants me to play a game of chess. Let’s see what’s available so I can produce an outcome they will consider satisfying and be pleased that they requested my assistance.

Agreed. I was confused by the Trio example until I reverse engineered what they meant from the outputs. Trio behaves differently (in well-defined, easy to understand ways) depending on where you put nurseries.

This issue is older than the M chips: a formative OpenCL moment on my Intel MacBook involved locking it up in this way. By contrast, a similar CUDA kernel running on Linux was forcibly stopped after some short-ish time.

Worse and less defensible on the web of course.

These rethinking-highlighting posts always start out with the wrong premise. The color for class names in my code is the color all the class names have. After a short time working with the code I would notice if one looked off. The brain is really very efficient. You don’t optimise for random out of context recall unless you really try hard to do so. It says nothing about the efficacy of the scheme.

Or, you know, using the totally-real-picture camera to take a photo of an AI-generated scene?

Wilson didn’t write “sex scene”, she wrote “sex”. In the story there is plenty of implied sex. In the movie there is none. It’s not a major issue in itself, it’s part of a broader point about movie Odysseus being “uncomplicated” versus the story— both morally, and when it comes to passions (sex, food, revenge).

It does, but in the same way that LLMs take two paragraphs to make a one-sentence point: by being weirdly specific and also redundant. LLMs don’t have a sense of whimsy in the face of RLHF, so if it’s proposing a solution, the solution is tractable. All implementation plans start with a beachhead.

“A good starting point” is almost certainly all it needed to convey and what it should have written.

> They don't "blow bubbles" to sleep vertically, they vent gas to regulate their specific gravity. This allows them to sleep vertically

When I read this I thought you'd discovered that the whales release the gas in a form other than by blowing bubbles, or that the purpose of doing so was for something other than improved sleep.

But no, the whales literally release air through their blowhole in the form of bubbles, and, at least during study you linked, they do this while resting to maintain their vertical orientation. An orientation, the paper theorises, that enables better sleep by not being buffeted by waves.

They quite literally blow bubbles to achieve restful, vertical sleep.

My reaction was negative when I read the title (policy!), but the actual outcome was very reasonable. "Hey, can we add $ORIGIN to the VFS layer to support relocatable interpreters?" "You can already do that with binfmt_misc and ebpf, here's an example."

Then, later, a couple of patches to make binfmt_misc more ergonomic. Seems like a good outcome.