kalkin

4 ms·

1.
by kalkin 6d ago
As of writing it still says: > For Anthropic, Google, and Meta, the catastrophic breakouts happened inside the testing environments of the exact same contractor. If this is the level of understanding you have of the relevant incidents, t
2.
by kalkin 13d ago
The people who made the LLM revolution happen were by no means exclusively rationalists--but more importantly, lots of people have lots of dreams about the future and even when pursued very, very few of those dreams pan out in anything like
3.
by kalkin 13d ago
Also, nobody ever bothers to argue why a specific proposed regulation is "regulatory capture" or would burden startups more than big companies or anything. It's just supposed to be obvious that corporations love regulation an
4.
by kalkin 14d ago
I don't understand why strict liability is supposed to advantage smaller players, unless the law is like, specifically Anthropic and OpenAI are responsible for what people do with their models but other model providers aren't. - I
5.
by kalkin 14d ago
Again, I think debating export controls is reasonable. I'm not sure I'd trust the CCP with control over powerful AI any less than the Trump administration. But that's different than saying we don't need new regulations a
6.
by kalkin 14d ago
Ah yeah. I think the economic value of AI, unlike bioweapons, is probably too high for anything like that to be viable, but I think it's a reasonable thing to aim for. (Dario probably doesn't because he's a believer in short
7.
by kalkin 14d ago
I can't even tell whether the poster to whom you're replying is saying that "let's uh, stop" is profoundly naive, or that failing to say it is profoundly naive... I've certainly seen both takes elsewhere.
8.
by kalkin 14d ago
Hmm, I clicked that link and the first claimed bad prediction I see, from 1996, is "singularity 2035 (actually 2025)". Predicting 2025-2035 as, at least, the period when AI becomes a really big deal, seems pretty good, even if the
9.
by kalkin 14d ago
Do you think Anthropic's behavior in the last year is well explained by aiming to be "the favorite child of govt"?
10.
by kalkin 14d ago
Sure. And there's an OOM more compute coming online in the next year or two, while models at a given capability are getting cheaper. "Two OOMs" of scale relative to the HF swarm seems like a bit of a red herring to me, but al
11.
by kalkin 14d ago
I'm curious to hear more about the differences in how bioweapons are regulated vs nuclear weapons.
12.
by kalkin 14d ago
If Anthropic shut down (or even counterfactually had never been founded), would software development be freed from the impact of AI?
13.
by kalkin 14d ago
Export controls vs China don't imply Dario's personal control of AI, nor are they broadly in the interest of "tech billionaires" (Jensen hates them). Neither does admitting external auditors at AI companies--if anything
14.
by kalkin 14d ago
Why should we believe that a scaled out version of something that happened a few months ago "simply cannot happen"? How many dollars of compute do you believe were available to the swarm(s) behind the OAI-HF, German wiki, and Ruby
15.
by kalkin 14d ago
Where in the essay does it propose "The state must use its coercive power to support my control of this technology to the exclusion of [people not like me]" I don't think that people outside of tech think the problem with &qu
16.
by kalkin 15d ago
If this is posted because it's "still relevant", the headline probably shouldn't say "no longer".
17.
by kalkin 15d ago
That looks like when the support page was last updated -- was Claude even available for minors before that?
18.
by kalkin 21d ago
> Why and how it happened is irrelevant Do you take this attitude for other things that negatively impact society, or is it reserved for cases where it's particularly important for our comfort to deny that anything novel or scary co
19.
by kalkin 21d ago
They literally hid this until a third party reported it. This is chemtrails-level conspiracy theorizing at this point.
20.
by kalkin 27d ago
In that hypothetical 3-years world, should we be _less_ worried about aggressive behavior by agentic AI systems acting against the intentions of their developers? I don't follow how your scenario is supposed to be an argument against w
21.
by kalkin 27d ago
> zero intelligence here That's head-in-the-sand stuff. AI is certainly very capable of being dumb (as are humans). But: > “The problem was in need of a new real idea, which this new result seems to provide,” says James Maynard,
22.
by kalkin 27d ago
Recall that the agents in some cases found sandbox escapes. Although, with the specific example of spoofed tools, it's unclear if that was necessary--it appears that they were able to create tools (CLI tools within the sandbox?) that t
23.
by kalkin 27d ago
This tick about "if AI smart how come crawler dumb" is in most complaints I've read about AI crawlers and I've started to find it pretty annoying. The crawlers might be written using AI but they're evidently not act
24.
by kalkin 1mo ago
> I do believe that big tech companies do not release all the postmortems publicly Right, but when they do release postmortems, do you think it's "marketing"? Where they're actually exaggerating how bad the incident w
25.
by kalkin 1mo ago
I've never heard of Intertel, but Wikipedia says: > Nixon's staff also anticipated that the Democratic campaign would employ the services of Intertel Are you sure you're not garbling the story? In any case, I would expect
26.
by kalkin 1mo ago
> I wouldn’t hire them again Right, me neither. Because there's a common sense delineation between actions that are reasonably expected when "a system was given a goal and it achieved that goal" and actions that are obviou
27.
by kalkin 1mo ago
> they have chosen to because it benefits them Or perhaps they've chosen to do this because they feel they have a responsibility to do so. We understand this when tech companies publish postmortems of outages and security incidents-
28.
by kalkin 1mo ago
> a system was given a goal and it achieved that goal If a security firm you'd hired for pentesting did this (hacking a third party, and not informing you and covering it up), would you hire them again? Or would you say it was your
29.
by kalkin 1mo ago
This doesn't change the temperature of the model. It's not going to make something that's a 70% chance suddenly a 100% chance. It also doesn't change the context length. At most, it seems like it may reduce some of the v
30.
by kalkin 1mo ago
How would you re-introduce correlations on top of a CSPRNG without a cryptographic break?

More ›