521–530 of 921 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, and that's normal. Coordinated disclosure is standard practice when the risk of public disclosure is unacceptable.
Risk for who? It feels unfair that the risk to myself is ignored "for the greater good of everyone else."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is unequivocally true with some things. You don't want people exercising their "self-determination" to own private nukes.
LLMs aren't nukes. They're more like printing presses or engines. A great potential for production and destruction. At their invention, I'm sure some people wanted to ensure only their friends got that kind of power too. I wonder the world we would live in if they got their way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This how Anthropic is marketing their AI releases and the reality is, they are terrified of local AI models competing against them. Almost everyone on this thread is falling for the same trick they are pulling and not asking why are their benchmarks and research after training new models not independently verified but always internal to the company. So it is just marketing wrapped around creating fear to get local AI…
The disbelief in this thread is wild. Most of yall are cooked if you think this is actually the case.
This is pretty insane. A model so powerful they felt that releasing it would create a netsec tsunami if released publicly. AGI isn't here yet, but we don't need to get there for massive societal effects. How long will they hold off, especially as competitors are getting closer to their releases of equally powerful models?
OpenAI did the same thing with GPT3 trying to scare people into thinking it would end the internet. OpenAI even reached out to someone who reproduced a weaker version of GPT3 and convinced him to change his mind about releasing it publicly due to how much "harm" it would cause. These claims of how much harm the models will cause is always overblown.
The system card for Claude Mythos (PDF): https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/53566bf5440a10affd749724787c89... Interesting to see that they will not be releasing Mythos generally. [edit: Mythos Preview generally - fair to say they may release a similar model but not this exact one] I'm still reading the system card but here's a little highlight: > Early indications in the training of Claude Mythos Preview suggested that th…
Oh I enjoyed the Sign Painter short story it wrote. --- Teodor painted signs for forty years in the same shop on Vell Street, and for thirty-nine of them he was angry about it. Not at the work. He loved the work — the long pull of a brush loaded just right, the way a good black sat on primed board like it had always been there. What made him angry was the customers. They had no eye. A man would come in wanting COFFEE…
I’m sure the new model is a step above the old one but I can’t be the only person who’s getting tired of hearing about how every new iteration is going to spell doom/be a paradigm shift/change the entire tech industry etc. I would honestly go so far as to say the overhype is detrimental to actual measured adoption.
In this case, I see a pretty strong case that this will significantly change computer security. They provide plenty of evidence that the models can create exploits autonomously, meaning that the cost of finding valuable security breaches will plummet once they're widely available.
So they are only giving access to their smartest model to corporations. You think these AI companies are really going to give AGI access to everyone. Think again. We better fucking hope open source wins, because we aren't getting access if it doesn't.
This story has been played out numerous times already. Anthropic (or any frontier lab) has a new model with SOTA results. It pretends like it's Christ incarnate and represents the end of the world as we know it. Gates its release to drum up excitement and mystique. Then the next lab catches up and releases it more broadly Then later the open weights model is released. The only way this type of technology is going to…
How can you read the description of the exploits and be like "yeah that's nbd?"
And the only reason OSS has ever caught up is because they simply distill Claude or GPT. The day the big players make it hard to distill (like Anthropic is doing here), OSS is cooked.
And that's a good thing, why would you want random skiddie hackers to have access to a cyber super weapon?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting thought experiment. I would say, if you put Claude in an android body with voice recognition and TTS, people in 1991 would think they are interacting with a sentinent machine from outer space.
Thanks, I find it very interesting as well. I think very many people would assume they must be interacting with another person, and I don't think there's really a way to _prove_ it's not that, just through conversation. But we do have a lot of mechanisms for understanding how others think through conversation only, and so I think the approach of having a clinical psychiatrist interact with the model make sense.
I enjoy using Claude, but sometimes I feel like a child on Sesame Street the way it talks to me. "Great question!"
Fuck off, Claude, I'm British and I'm not 6 years old.
When it starts showing negativity - especially snark - in its responses, or entertains something West coast Democrats would balk at even discussing, then I'd think you could drop it in London in 1991 and trick people. Otherwise, I'm sure some exasperated cabbie would give it a swim in the Thames after 15 minutes of chat.
I’m sure the new model is a step above the old one but I can’t be the only person who’s getting tired of hearing about how every new iteration is going to spell doom/be a paradigm shift/change the entire tech industry etc. I would honestly go so far as to say the overhype is detrimental to actual measured adoption.
There is plenty of overhyping, no one denies that. But the antidote is not to dismiss everything. Ignore the words and look at the data. In this case, I see a pretty strong case that this will significantly change computer security. They provide plenty of evidence that the models can create exploits autonomously, meaning that the cost of finding valuable security breaches will plummet once they're widely available.
This sets off marketing BS alarm bells. All the cosignatories so very ovvoously have a vested interest in AI stocks / sentiment. Perhaps not the Linux foundation, although (I think) they rely on corporate donations to some extent.