Viewing profile — sanxiyn

Congratulations to the first NetBSD release with RISC-V port!

This is not okay. NSA should audit both OpenAI and Anthropic on national security ground. This seems far more justifiable than Mythos export control.

Yes, I agree it is effectively a blanket ban (above some capability) for now. I hope AI alignment research advances in the future so that it is not so.

I think we agree on all specifics now and just fighting for terminology. Thanks for the discussion!

That is a difficult question I am not qualified to answer, but Mythos 5 was export controlled for a brief time due to its cybersecurity capability and implications to national secu…

Agreed, and that serves Anthropic. It seems unproblematic to me. Dario probably sincerely believes in mandatory safety testing for capable models (open and closed), and likes the f…

De facto ban on capable open-weight models doesn't seem inconsistent with Dario's statement to me. One, it is de facto, not de jure, and it can and will change as AI alignment rese…

Yes, I agree that Anthropic is advocating a ban on capable open-weight models until reasonable AI alignment research advance happens in the future. In return, I hope you agree with…

I think Gemma will be fine. Most open-weight models are not capable enough to be dangerous. Yes, I can't think of any capable open-weight model that would survive reasonable safety…

I know, but "we don't know how to make it not dangerous, so it should be allowed to release dangerous things" is... not convincing?

Any reasonable safety testing should include finetuning and safety margin to account for others may do better finetuning.

I agree we don't know how capable open-weight models could possibly pass any reasonable safety testing NOW, but that's about currently abysmal state of AI alignment research, not a…

For what? Would authors and publishers like that?

No, this is not the case for human security researchers and I don't see why it should be true for LLMs.

If a model fails the test, it should be banned. He is not advocating a ban of open-weight models. He is advocating a ban of models that fail mandatory safety testing. Seems reasona…

It is better in a sense that D is not C or C++. Technical innovation is memory safety with high level of compatibility with existing C and C++ in practice. It is compatible enough …

WTF. Food safety is just a reasonable thing for a mature civilization to do. It has nothing to do with banning technological advancement.

More people should use C#, to be honest.

I think Fil-C ABI implemented by all of C, Rust, and Zig is the future. But that would need some sort of stability for interoperation, and stabilizing ABI takes time: Rust still do…

What do you think is the best proposal?

For now, I find the quality of LLM translation highly inadequate, I can do much better, and LLMs agree my translation is much better. So I think "no LLM for official documentation"…

That is Proposal C, not Proposal A. (Although I do think Proposal A as written also does not forbid translation usage to communicate.)

It's more like: food processing tool A is known to be defective. We ask employees of this restaurant and supply chains to avoid food processing tool A. This seems eminently reasona…

I don't believe Proposal A forbids this usage.

The article addresses this: search for "No noise".