Promising, or absolutely terrifying.

Wouldn’t previous Opus models be able to solve them too? In my experience Sonnet is often lackluster.

I’m an avid less wrong reader, but this is incredible

Fall in line, be a good little citizen and you have nothing to worry about.

I checked mine and it was pretty accurate. Nothing very concerning.

I checked mine on Amazon Japan's site. While it had some categories: height, weight, age, fit attributes, and shoe sizes: nothing was populated.

I can only guess that there's hidden information that indicates I'm extremely privacy conscious. But it could be possible that information is populated by cookies which I don't allow.

You need to click “About you” at the bottom of that screen to view personalized details

I'm seeing the same, various categories with no information filed. It's the only instance of "about you" found on the page.

>but they aren’t conscious You don’t know that. >language is orthogonal to consciousness I don’t think that is true either. The beings we think of being conscious all are social creatures and communicate in some form.

Give me a new oasis please Amazon

New old stock comes up every once in a while. Last year I bought 2 with cases (both new in box), jailbroke one and put the other in a closet.

Who cares? Minor spelling mistakes rank very low on my list of grievances with the administration.

The answer to my first question

>… we observed that CCW motion consistently emerged even when all pedestrians roaming in an enclosed space were left-handed or when their turning preference was to the right

I can’t believe how cynical everyone on HN is about this. Sure Sama is a chronic liar, and maybe this is a farce; but a lot of very intelligent people are afraid of the danger we are bringing about by racing to superintelligence.

All I really would like is for some of you to CONSIDER THAT YOURE INCORRECT. Just imagine that people ringing the fire alarms are being sincere. Please entertain the position with an open mind.

I could believe it could be a dangerous model, I guess.

I don't believe they really care about danger, or that they'd actually fully withhold release on anything significant.

And when I say "significant", is 6.1 Astra even meaningfully different from 6 Astra in capability? That release was less than a month ago.

You can't believe a company that's investigating over 10k security incidents in which subagents that they developed and are hosting appear to be indiscriminately hacking into whatever they think will give them some data that improves the prompt response might not want to release that to the public and have subagents hack into stuff for profit?

I don't get how this being an entirely legitimate issue is even hard to grasp.

The number of releases they've gone ahead with so far act as proof that they don't care all that much.

Did they fix it by not releasing a point release of an already existing model? No?

Did they just get a bunch of credulous "news" coverage out of it? Yes?

Will they just release this within the next weeks, at best? Yes?

Huh, funny that.

I’m tired of the doom trolling. Boy who cried wolf. We can’t stop them anyway so no point in letting them stress me any further

So we should believe the boy who cried wolf, this time?

If all these claims were being made about some tech further along than LLMs currently are, they might be plausible. But LLMs on their own are not going to be “superintelligence” of the kind Altman is currently cynically spreading fear about. We know their limitations, and those limitations can’t simply be eliminated with more training or better harnesses.

> Just imagine that people ringing the fire alarms are being sincere.

The top three possibilities here are: they’re not being sincere, they’re just marketing; they’re being sincere, but they don’t understand the technology very well and are putting too much weight in what the first group are saying; they’re talking about a risk further in the future than OpenAI’s latest model.

No-one serious outside of OpenAI believes “this is the one”. At best, you’re conflating arguments being made on entirely different timelines, falling for the exact kind of equivocation Altman is relying on.