I’m not convinced that regulatory capture really saves the day, either.
If we believe all the hype about programming efficiency, then regulatory capture in the US becomes just one more in a list of many steps the current administration has taken to chase software development jobs overseas.
And if there was any doubt, look at the difference in their stock price for the prior year when they were "calling for regulation" vs now that there's an actual chance they get regulation by someone they don't control.
The problem is SCOTUS has already ruled software is protected under the First Amendment, and the landmark cases that establish this precedent applies perfectly to model files.
Weights aren't really software though? Any more than a png is software. And God knows you can put things in a png that are not covered by the first amendment.
Encryption algorithms require substitution-boxes or other data for the algorithm to work correctly. Changing the data separately from the algorithm fundamentally alters the correctness of the algorithm.
LLM algorithms also require model data for the algorithm to work correctly. Similar to cryptography, changing the data separately from the algorithm fundamentally alters the correctness of the algorithm.
This precedent has already been perfectly established thanks to Phil Zimmermann and Daniel J. Bernstein.
You mean like in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. (2024) where SCOTUS struck down Purdue Pharma’s multi-billion-dollar bankruptcy reorganization plan? Being cynical and demoralized (read: a doomer retard) is what the oligarchs wish.
I suspect they'd be manually filtering which issues/features their agents attempt to fix/implement. Otherwise you end up with all sorts of features that simply make no sense for the project.
The approach is at least better than accepting slop PRs that could have backdoors injected into them.
I don't think reasonable usage has anything to do with it, it's not hard to find useful workloads to run overnight, and that will just become easier as models get better and need less supervision.
At current GPU pricing you're right, unless you highly value running uncensored models, data ownership, and/or privacy.
It needs to be a useful workload to run overnight that also benefits from a number of parallel agents to have the same economics as the cloud. But maybe that will become the norm!
As a Canadian I'm disappointed in Cohere's behaviour here. It's rather clear that this was the agent trying to test the rule it was asked to create, and it did not attempt to push a diagnostic file as the subtitle claims, it attempted to attach a small test string that had no sensitive info.
I suspect had that test url been to a S3 bucket url rather than Alibaba, Cohere wouldn't have even bothered to write the article. This is the kind of FUD I would expect from a US based AI company.
Cohere should be attempting to build bridges with Chinese AI companies, not burn them.
> Now we can basically say that its not Facebook and Google doing this directly
Finding out that TVs are listening does not mean Google and Facebook aren't. I've had plenty of times in an old car, or on a walk talking about something only to have related ads pop up later.
They can already do that with most of the information they already have, they don't need to listen for that type of thing (though they still might be as you see here, data is data after all).
Most people are not that unique. They know where you are and who you are with and any searching or sites you have been to and what is in your text messages or whatsapp as well as that same information for all the people 6 degrees away from you. They know people like you, who are your age and like the things you like and are where you are with friends like yours etc etc it goes on and on.
People rarely talk about things unprompted and you will only notice when you think you talked about something and then see an ad for it so there is a confirmation bias as well.
I've always viewed Fielder as someone who is deeply manipulative for the purpose of entertainment. Yet I do not find it entertaining in the slightest, it's disgusting. So a documentary by a manipulative person, of another manipulative person sounds like the worst thing ever.
Excited to see this applied to Qwen 3.8 27B. It's reasoning output tends to include lots of restatement, which I guess would be more likely to be kept in latent space with this hybrid reasoning.
I suspect they meant an internal monologue, which many do have, but it's not really clear how much it contributes to thinking. People without internal monologue clearly are still able to think though.
One can, with enough practice, learn to silence one's internal monologue.
It then becomes apparent that a great number of things are able to be done without an inner voice. Volition seems to occur spontaneously and it becomes ambiguous whether narration proceeds volition of volition proceeds narration.
It's still unclear what the limits of action-sans-monologue, reading seems especially hard for the sub-vocalist, conversation, or planning. But who knows, it's a fertile ground for n=1 experiments.
> it becomes ambiguous whether narration proceeds volition of volition proceeds narration.
Have you heard of the Libet experiment? There are variations on it now that can predict your decisions from brain scans more than 5 seconds before you become aware of having decided. [0]
Most studies seem to show that thinking is largely post-hoc: a story we tell ourselves to justify decisions after already having made them.
Libet's experiment is fascinating, yes. You may also find relevant Gazzaniga's Left-brain interpreter concept[1]:
> We had asked a simple question: How does the left hemisphere respond to behaviors produced by the silent right brain? Each hemisphere was presented a picture that related to one of four pictures placed in front of the split-brain subject. The left and the right hemispheres easily picked the correct card. The left hand pointed to the right hemisphere’s choice and the right hand to the left hemisphere’s choice [see illustration at right].
> We then asked the left hemisphere, the only one that can talk , why the left hand was pointing to the object. It did not know, because the decision to point was made in the right hemisphere. Yet it quickly made up an explanation. We dubbed this creative, narrative talent the interpreter mechanism. [2]
Taken together, there's a very disturbing sequence playing out all the time in your head. A great deal of your brain, inaccessible to your conscious mind is incorporating sensory input, making decisions, and taking action while a small part is observing what's going on and narrating it to you in a way that makes it look as if the narration is involved in the volitional process.
It's a nightmarish version of epiphenomenalism[3] that, I suspect, most people would care not to believe is true. Although, reports of some expert meditators read as if they found intuitive evidence this is true and have also made peace with it or in some cases found the insight liberating.
In any case, I have a pessimistic sense that any definitive proof of the limits of consciousness that don't align with people's felt experience or common sense won't ever be accepted as truth.
> In any case, I have a pessimistic sense that any definitive proof of the limits of consciousness that don't align with people's felt experience or common sense won't ever be accepted as truth.
Well said. I've been attacked online so ferociously for mentioning it, that I suspect saying it in person would start an actual fight with some people.
I recognize that free will is foundational for society, but all right thinking people she be able to recognize that it is only a useful model - not descriptive of the actual territory.
> Although, reports of some expert meditators read as if they found intuitive evidence this is true and have also made peace with it or in some cases found the insight liberating.
Very much so. When I was taught to meditate they started by having me observe my own breathing, and then my thoughts and feelings as they came and went without judgement. After doing this for some time and learning to just quietly observe my own thinking as thoughts came and went they then sprung the trap: "If the thoughts are you, who is it that's been watching them?"
You come to accept that most thoughts happen the way breathing does, they're not something you "do", it's just something that brains do on their own. "You" are no more in control of them than you are your heartrate.
Recently I've become more and more aware of the disconnect between my "self" and what my brain does - I'll often do or say things then, a few seconds later, find myself processing what I just did or said then correcting myself. It's quite strange to remember yourself doing something incorrectly, but not remember actually thinking about doing that thing.
I have never seen a dog owner release their dog in a situation where they are scared. Usually if a dog owner is scared they try to keep their dog closer, to protect the dog from the scary thing.
Are you sure the dogs are not already off leash in your area when you are running by. There are many owners who simply have their untrained dogs off leash when they probably shouldn't.
reply