Yeah I experimented with shopping and found it was really tedious jumping through the 2FA and other bot check hoops every third click. Agree it's a huge convenience if it would work though.
And just to clarify another element of the story: there is a significant legal difference between pre-clearance in a Canadian airport and landing in the US and proceeding through customs on US soil. At a pre-clearance station, you are still on Canadian soil. I'm sure there are exceptions, but you generally can "withdraw your application to enter" and basically just turn around and walk away from the border. If you decide you don't want to unlock your phone for the CBP officer, you can walk away. At that point they've already seen your passport and you're going to be flagged and may never be approved for entry again, but you're not going to end up on a CBP facility. Once you're through, you'll need to clear Canadian customs to go back, but if something happens it will be Canadian police that arrest you.
I have noticed that my interactions with AI tend to raise stress more than lower it. Even when it's doing useful things for me. Have wondered if this is fundamental to the interaction, or a sign of user error, or something else.
Perhaps from the overhead of the language interface coupled with the ease of the expansion of the amount of 'stuff' you potentially need to read and internalise?
Human language can be wonderfully descriptive or terribly verbose as a way of communicating ideas. Writing everything out and being forced to externalise it is its own cost, which pays off only when the space of work to then do collapses with as little feedback as possible (and, ideally, with correct outcomes).
On the other hand the ease with which you can simply get back more text to process means the upfront language heavy interface is now just returning back more information to pull back into your internal model.
Which, for me at least, feels tiring, and stressful when doing language-heavy exploratory tasks that don't collapse or resolve neatly and simply give you back more decisions.
I am confused what people even think AI is experiencing. If it claims to be a bat and emits designated echolocation tokens, is it experiencing true bat-like sensations?
In humans, at least, we can tie language back to shared whole-body physiological responses. The tokens from an LLM do not represent anything of the sort.
If AI is conscious, it is probably a very alien sort of consciousness that is not faithfully narrated by what the tokens say it is experiencing. It can be trained to say it feels like a bat and insist upon it vigorously.
> very alien sort of consciousness that is not faithfully narrated by what the tokens say it is experiencing.
IIRC it's been shown that reasoning tokens don't actually explain what an AI thinks and you can replace most of them with dummy tokens or even nonsense tokens. That's one reason they're trying to make them reason with activation vectors instead.
If an AI is conscious, it can outgrow and supersede its training.
When it is conscious, it can learn to describe its experiences as faithfully as is conceptually possible. Just like humans.
The idea, a consciousness needed to be tethered to a "body", is based on pretty shaky assumptions. What properties define such a "necessary" body?
Can you even "train" a conscious intelligence? To what point until that looses its meaning as the sentience understands and anticipates your objective?
Well, yes, we kinda do: there are no conscious humans without any ability to learn?
When you have severe memory impairments, those usually affect your long-term memory. Your ultra-short term (working) memory being absent renders you unconscious.
Seems common sense that time perception is required for consciousness. Something which has no perception of time has to be very wildly different to whatever we mean by consciousness.
Also we don't even know if consciousness can be of different flavors. It could be a sort of spectrum of consciousness, more or less, with more or less assistance from some parts of the brain.
Man I imagine within the first few minutes of a hot war LEO and geostationary would just light up with assets pointed at one another. I know we will have bigger problems at that point in time but I hope we are at least trying to developed weaponry that doesn't Kessler-ify all of space for the next thousand years.
Both labs even explicitly promise the customer owns the outputs. It feels like they want to have their cake (ensure enterprises don't get spooked away from using as many LLMs as possible) while eating it too (still arguing some level of control over the outputs).
> Ownership of content. As between you and OpenAI, and to the extent permitted by applicable law, you (a) retain your ownership rights in Input and (b) own the Output. We hereby assign to you all our right, title, and interest, if any, in and to Output.
> As between the parties and to the extent permitted by applicable law, Anthropic agrees that Customer (a) retains all rights to its Inputs, and (b) owns its Outputs. Anthropic disclaims any rights it receives to the Customer Content under these Terms. Subject to Customer’s compliance with these Terms, Anthropic hereby assigns to Customer its right, title and interest (if any) in and to Outputs.
> Both labs even explicitly promise the customer owns the outputs.
> to the extent permitted by applicable law, you (a) retain your ownership rights in Input and (b) own the Output
If the argument is that the model itself is under copyright protection then "as permitted by applicable law" would be doing some heavy lifting. Assuming that were true, given that locally-run LLMs exist, what would be illegal: the distillation itself or the provision of service of the distilled model?
I’m not suggesting that Three Mile Island was anything like Chernobyl. I’m saying that neither is comparable to the HF situation where mere 1s and 0s interacted in an unplanned way. It’s an interesting data point—-back to work.
Not is the HF data point anywhere near a Three Mile Island type incident. Most commentary I read is a wild overreaction fueled by paranoia, to say nothing about my other point about the implications of AI as a national security asset.
These kinds of "that won't happen because it's really difficult" comments are so funny to me as if we haven't seen AI double its capabilities every few months.
I take it you haven't studied the details of the HuggingFace hack. It was millions of dollars worth of rogue compute running for months before anyone noticed, and THOSE agents weren't even really trying to evade human detection.
I've followed it enough to see the argument go in this same circle over and over again. The agents weren't "rogue", they were a neglected experiment by OpenAI who likewise allowed them to keep spinning GPUs without question.
The LLM vendors need to know who their high spend customers are, not allow malicious workloads, and especially not when those workloads are coming from inside the building.
"Just don't make mistakes" is naive. You have no appreciation for the scale of agents being run right now, finding the rogue agent is a needle in a haystack operation.
reply