roenxi

4 ms·

1.
by roenxi 5d ago
Torrents are legal until someone, at great expense and difficulty, proves otherwise (even then, jurisdiction and content dependent). At which point everyone involved will ignore the fact and carry on. That is a situation with enormous will,
2.
by roenxi 5d ago
It is not feasible. They never made much of an inroad against torrents and that is a much easier target than abliterated models. As the linked website shows; the process to abliterate a model can be as simple as pip install -U heretic-llm &
3.
by roenxi 6d ago
Those arguments are independent of the state of OSS models. There appears to be no moat whatsoever on creating state of the art models commercially - the US threw the kitchen sink at China in terms of sanctions and barriers ... yet it has b
4.
by roenxi 7d ago
> A sufficiently dedicated human analyst could have done this; but they didn't. Isn't that something of a given? If possible then a sufficiently dedicated human analyst could have done it. If impossible, ChatGPT couldn't h
5.
by roenxi 8d ago
> This is quite clearly accusing them of being a cult in the sense of Scientology or Jonestown, not in the sense of Britney Spears lovers. If that were true, I believe you would be able to draw support from the text. You've got quot
6.
by roenxi 8d ago
Or the cult of Eliezer Yudkowsky aka Yud. > And there is no doubt that, rightly or wrongly, this is what the article author means to accuse Rationality/EA of being. There is substantial doubt, I don't think the article did accu
7.
by roenxi 9d ago
It also [0] defines a cult as great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (such as a film or book) or a small group of very devoted supporters or fans. And I put it to you that the article is clearly using the word more in t
8.
by roenxi 9d ago
Because they don't get enough votes to control the military. If they put a convincing pitch in for why they should then they can. Being a cult doesn't rule them out. > You do understand what a cult is? Pretty much any religion
9.
by roenxi 9d ago
I mean, this is a rather fun article to read but I'm not entirely sure about the thesis. > AI Safety Is Mostly A Sex Cult. > I don't think these people should make policy. (1/?) One of the learnings from things like the
10.
by roenxi 10d ago
But the human would have to get extra hardware to do that. The AI isn't bringing in any resources it doesn't already have access to.
11.
by roenxi 10d ago
Well, yes. I do. Why do you want to consider mining Monero with a shitty custom CPU? That's a bit of a non-sequitur and I don't see the relevance to the thread. We've been in furious agreement on that point for about 4 posts
12.
by roenxi 10d ago
It's an interesting puzzle, isn't it. On the one hand, the AIs are no good at playing Chess. However, on the other hand, if you ask an AI to win a game of chess it has all the tools on hand to compete at the same level as Stockfis
13.
by roenxi 11d ago
That sounds implausible. For a premium brand the marginal unit should be comfortably profitable, so they will have the resources to saturate the market at exponential speed purely from their unit economics. The somewhat theatrical lines out
14.
by roenxi 11d ago
You're the one who called a CPU an ASIC. Seems pretty general purpose, it's a Turing machine simulator. And hot ice cubes are a thing. They've made ice at up to 650K if the wiki phase diagram is any indicator https:/&#x
15.
by roenxi 12d ago
Oh yes, sorry. General purpose. I edited the comment.
16.
by roenxi 12d ago
> Like Monero but easy to mine is Monero. A Monero mining ASIC is called a CPU, by design. That is the "does nothing" argument. But compared to Bitcoin, having a general-purpose [0] ASIC seems like it'd make the network le
17.
by roenxi 12d ago
It is a bit of a leap, but quite possibly an oblique reference to Voltaire's Candide . He spent some time dismantling the idea that this was the best of all possible worlds (the phrase apparently started with Leibniz) and the Lisbon e
18.
by roenxi 12d ago
Yeah but their strategy on that seems kinda dumb to me because it either does nothing or has a negative effect on the ecosystem. If someone wants to mine bitcoin on their own CPU they can, and if my PC has enough hash power to find a coin o
19.
by roenxi 13d ago
The article is exploring a broad topic but one area that seems to be overlooked is governments making privacy illegal or actively working to undermine it. The major privacy risk right now is things like social media age verification laws wh
20.
by roenxi 13d ago
> The point being: humans seem to me to be the weak link here. I tend to agree but it is hard to shake the feeling that there is a larger system in play that the humans are just a component of. And that system is making the decisions. Hi
21.
by roenxi 13d ago
> ...from a checking account. Banks ... We've got Schrodinger's money here! One minute I can go down to the bar and create as much money as I like with the bartender. Then the next we suddenly discover that yes we need a bank
22.
by roenxi 13d ago
> Yes. How? And what is your theory why people pay taxes from their labour earnings instead of just creating new money to pay Just-In-Time? > A lot, however, will be created through loans (new M1) Isn't M1 is currency and overnig
23.
by roenxi 13d ago
That's not sexist though, it is just equivalent to noting she's a woman (like calling her "her" and "she") because we can reasonably offer the same criticism about a man. A man can have an extremely arrogant de
24.
by roenxi 13d ago
If we attempted to pay our taxes by creating this new money, do you think we would succeed? Because I suspect that when we get to the tax office we will discover that what you're calling money is not actually money in the practical sen
25.
by roenxi 13d ago
> not on the article to triple its length to prove every minor claim. Yes but that is my point. They're making the article longer by including evidence that undermines its claims. They should have either made the claim and let it st
26.
by roenxi 13d ago
My point is the article claimed it would show evidence of something when in fact it did not. It should either not have bothered to include evidence or found better evidence
27.
by roenxi 13d ago
It's not a handwave - the article doesn't offer anything to handwave away. The article says that she was offered specifically gendered criticism, then quotes generic criticism. I'm sure being a woman counted against her, bit
28.
by roenxi 13d ago
> The double standards are evident when we consider that all of this would sound ludicrous if aimed at a man who had been proclaimed king... I don't know about that, the quoted criticisms sound a lot like those that would be levelle
29.
by roenxi 14d ago
> 'But Cisco did it too!' is just whataboutism. A whataboutism that makes a legitimate point. It isn't reasonable to dismiss something just because a person makes a comparison. It's valid to consider that Apple might
30.
by roenxi 14d ago
> It absolutely is. Similar to the way banks create money [1]. The commitments support credit that wouldn't exist without it. Making a loan/offering credit isn't automatically money creation - the amount of money in the sy

More ›