It seems it might be more a combination of whether it's a social animal and how much help / how much danger the offspring is actually in. There's not a whole lot that fucks with elephants, and not a lot that successfully fucks with the young ones. And female elephants universally live in groups and collectively all protect each other. Female lions tend to do the same, and also have very few things that fuck with them.
Conversely human offspring is especially weak and incapable and susceptible to harm, and experiences a lot of threat even within the same species.
Not sure where that are of whale and chimps fit into that - flukes can also happen I guess.
Logos can be part of both. A sufficiently unique logo (e.g. not just the name in Times New Roman) is absolutely copyrighted and an image of it cannot be distributed/reproduced without authorization unless fair use, which the malware project is not.
You're correct I was overly broad about the actual name use being DMCA-able though.
You can have copyright open source code, which is what allows open source licenses to enforce their terms. Open source doesn't mean "free to do whatever you want". There are very restrictive open source licenses, and you can deviate from the common open source licenses.
There was news like 10-15ish years ago that the US government was making massive data storage facilities across the country. Like spending over a billion dollars on them. When I read that I knew that basically every email and text and call and DNS lookup I made was in a permanent record. I operate as though anything I do on a computer is being permanently stored, because it likely is if it's going through any US operated or controlled service providers or companies.
They’re holding off on doing that kind of thing until they have assurance that it won’t matter if the general public know who specifically they are, that they have this capability, and that they are willing to use it without caring for legality. I estimate that we’re probably right on the precipice of that time period.
Mildly interesting anecdote: when the Cyphral Distich solution popped up a few days ago, I spent about an hour with ChatGPT trying to solve it myself without looking at the proposed solution. ChatGPT opened by saying “the solution is disputed online,” and made the dispute sound fairly convincing, which struck me as odd because things like this are usually either clearly solved or clearly not.
After I gave up (mostly because ChatGPT had given me incomplete information needed to solve it) I checked the source of the dispute. It was a site very similar to this one and someone had an AI agent working on the same problem, publishing dozens or hundreds of pages of notes. The agent found the solution page and concluded it was wrong because many of the 32 source passages supposedly didn’t contain enough text.
I dug up the PDF of the book and found the mistake - whenever a passage continued onto the next page, the agent wasn’t including that continuation. The passages weren’t actually too short.
Annoying that ChatGPT can cite sources like this without being able to properly weigh their reliability.
Verifying sources is a recursive problem - where do you stop? Humans have intuitive feel for it, but agents don’t or at least not yet (I wonder if intuition is just a secondary neural net which is currently being added to the agents as we speak).
Also as a human you are able to examine agents erroneous trajectory, real or imaginary, without contaminating your own. Agent have a problem with that - as soon as someone else’s thought is in the context it can lose track of provenance and veracity. Sometimes I think we need a bloom filter to retroactively assign “dirty” flag to invalidated or questionable token spans already in the context.
Even before AI I strongly believed the internet was eventually going to have to move to a web of trust model. I think World ID (formerly Worldcoin) can be a really cool part of the solution to this, though people widely criticize it without fully understanding it and make assumptions that are wrong. But I agree that trust and verification is increasingly a large problem and one of the best ways to combat that is to actually choose unique identities to trust.
> I wonder if intuition is just a secondary neural net which is currently being added to the agents as we speak
Arguably, intuition is primary neural net, the only thing an LLM has without CoT, it just is spiky so humans only notice where it's below-average and just dismiss the rest as normal. Of course it's going to lag behind in some areas compared to others.
I think this is what obstacles on the path to AGI look like now. It’s random things that would be obvious to a human but are unrepresentative in how an AI views the world and therefore it suddenly becomes seemingly incapable, despite having basically superpowers for proximal work.
I don’t mean that to say AGI is here or easy or necessarily that close but it’s likely going to feel like one thing after another until one day most of these things that make you think “how could something so capable be that dumb” are largely solved.
Yes, and right now it seems we get around this problem by spawning 10k agents (that's what OpenAI did for the stokes problem) and hoping that at least one of the 10k catches this and does it right - which it very likely will.
I would argue artists imitating, for example, the artists who revolutionize a genre of music are also in fact massively reducing the demand for the originals by 99%. Imagine if no one ever made a song after the Beetles that sounded any newer. The demand for Beetles music would have remained somehow even more enormous than it was for the last 50 years. Or if no one did abstract paintings after Kandinsky, or impressionism after Monet or cubism after Picasso.
When chrome was literally first released it was in fact faster than IE and Firefox, by quite a lot, and had some nice features that neither had, too. But that gap didn't last for long.
There was a reason - it was anti-nuclear hysteria fueled (hah) in large part by fossil-fuel interests and environmental groups that treated nuclear power as an existential threat rather than one of the safest, lowest-carbon energy sources available. Thanks to them there have been dozens of millions of lives, at minimum, lost.
Conversely human offspring is especially weak and incapable and susceptible to harm, and experiences a lot of threat even within the same species.
Not sure where that are of whale and chimps fit into that - flukes can also happen I guess.
reply