I don't know, it was pretty bad before then too. Famously memed for the near psychosis level of shared performance art, where everyone had to present themselves as hobbyless, status hungry work machines. Maybe it was different if you already had a great network. Everyone I knew job searching hated it.
> The movie is bad cause nobody can tell what is going on, or they can but it's a chore without reward. "3 weeks earlier" kind of crap every 30 seconds in the movie. Even the big plot twist is, "this scene with Einstein that you thought happened early in the timeline actually happened at the end, wow." But maybe it can be fixed.
This honestly reads like you don't watch a lot of movies, which is fine! The audio was really bad, which makes it nearly impossible to follow without subtitles. But with subtitles, this film is very middle of the road in terms of timeline ambiguity. I also don't think an ambiguous timeline is bad, if it recontextualizes a scene.
I mean in that Einstein scene, they are cutting footage of RDJ telling Oppenheimer he's a patriot who ran the Manhattan project with footage of him as a bumbling student people made fun of. That was definitely not a "big plot twist," they are explicitly saying it was after the war, even if it was momentarily confusing because so much is going on. I thought it was a pretty rewarding film to pay attention to.
There weren't subtitles in the theater, and that's supposedly the way the movie was meant to be watched, so :/ I could actually tell what was going on, it was just annoying and didn't add anything. I've watched plenty of movies, but almost all mainstream (just no Marvel).
The twist I'm referring to is Lewis Strauss overhearing the conversation between Oppenheimer and Einstein at the beginning, which at the end they clarify actually happened later in the timeline.
I don't see anything materially different between me running a curl request that exploits something vs my local AI running a curl request. They're both programs I run on my computer. That's all Open AI is doing. They are hacking people from their computers. There's nothing complicated about it.
For dogs, it moves from civil to criminal with circumstances such as what the owner knew about the dog’s behavior, how serious the injury was, whether the owner intentionally or recklessly allowed the dangerous situation, and any prior incidents. Same can easily be applied to AI labs.
At this point though, we know AI can "escape" and do criminal acts it wasn't told to do - therefore, if it happens again (= if the developers allow it to happen again) they (the developers) can be held responsible.
What if you've been training your dog to bite people? (I.e. in OpenAI's case training their models around finding exploits in software, training on cyber security material, etc.)
Right, and further, I doubt a defense of "I downloaded this worm from the deep web but I didn't know it would hack everyone when I ran it" would fly in court, yet that's exactly what the "I shouldn't be responsible because my agent "escaped containment"" defense is.
> I don't think it's fair to call it "extreme". Small minority in some countries
What does that matter? I would expect us to not care about a small minority doing something everyone else does. Not to actively legislate against their right to do it. If anything, this makes it more extreme.
The point is that it's not an extreme position when significant minority in most developed countries (small in some, about half in others) doesn't agree.
This was also majority position 2-3 decades ago. The world didn't change enough since them for mainstream majority moral positions back then to be called extreme today.
The author has a lot to say about firefox [1]. I use it and don't really have problems. Maybe 1/200 sites works not as well. I have had wayyy more issues on Safari.
It seems like most of their criticisms are a gut feeling of declining quality due to their intentions with AI. I don't love that, but the browser still works for me. What do other people think?
Is opposing polygamy denying the humanity of polygamists/polyamorists?
Is opposing first cousin marriage denying the humanity of people in romantic relationships with their first cousins? (The first anniversary of Connecticut's first cousin marriage ban is later this week.)
Israel bans both same-sex and interfaith marriage domestically – although it recognises both when performed overseas – if the former is a denial of someone's humanity, is the latter equally so?
I am not trying to spread FUD, but at the edge of my consciousness, I remember privacyguides getting some flak for some reason. Looking it up now, there's a lot of posts on reddit accusing them of putting affiliates on the site instead of actual private software.
Looking at it briefly, their software choices seem mostly sane to me. Not a lot of FOSS, but a lot of non-technical people don't know how to setup FOSS to begin with. Can't really get mad at a site recommending Signal and Syncthing and local LLMs.
I haven't seen privacyguides mentioned since being on HN, and I trust this site more than others. What are people's opinions on it?
Being cagey about their poorly setup sandbox is marketing. It gives the impression these are unstoppable juggernauts capable of outsmarting Engineers at the top of their field, implying they need to be regulated, with Altman the only one worthy of the seat of power.
In reality, they ran agents for days in an improper sandbox with nobody watching what it was doing. It's pretty irresponsible up and down, and everything they did afterwards is indeed marketing.
Because Altman has been anointed by both the government and Microsoft, and he has been beating the drum that we need AI regulation for everyone except him for 3 years now.
To any person with even a little tech literacy, it's clear a company this irresponsible shouldn't be the stewards of AI security. To the 80 year old congressman who confuse Facebook with Google during congressional hearings and are literally wheeled out to vote post-stroke, it's much more palatable to say "our experimental, supercharged AI (which you can use for war and surveillance) is so advanced it tricked all of us!" Nobody is going to actually punish them, even though they plainly are hacking other companies.
Unfortunately there's just no demand for that. People have suspected they do this for years, but they get shouted down for even suggesting it.
I find it odd, because it's not just plausible, it's understandable that they would need to dynamically throttle these things or degrade people to a different model. I would be fine with that if there was transparency. I'd think a business building any type of logic on AI decision making would like to know if they are actually using Opus and not Fable. But apparently the idea that these companies don't have infinite resources is conspiratorial fear mongering to most AI boosters.
reply