451–460 of 696 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the primary is right handed. I enjoy asking my grandkids why mirrors reflect left to right and not top to bottom.
So he is not the primary?
Nomenclature is just a convention of convenience and can be ever so judgemental.
Particle / anti-Particle ... way to lead the jury, hey?
What we do know is that when Bob walks up to a mirror he sees adastra22.
The glass is likely there to stop them touching and spawning a new universe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The alternative is Claude-style "safeguards" aka censorship Another obvious alternative is to just have the model do what you tell it to do, and then arrest people who use generic tools for crime instead of trying to make a kitchen knife that can't be used for stabbing someone.
[flagged]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalit...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a widespread belief that the nature of intelligence is scalar, like how a person can have 100x more wealth than another person. If this were true, then we’d probably see breakaway RSI from a single lab. But I think we’re discovering that intelligence is about universality, not magnitude. This is analogous to how building a universal Turing machine wasn’t merely a matter of building a calculator that could mu…
But in theory you can make an LLM A LOT faster than a human. You can also run massive amount of LLMs in parallel. There might be a limit to a normal LLM but not to theo everall system.
One instance of an LLM is the same as another instance, so while you may get more out of it by stacking more of them, I strongly suspect it falls victim to diminishing returns. 100 instances of the same LLM may converge on the same result as 10.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> He's literally so rich that he can get caught personally looking through chat sessions and it wouldn't slow him down a bit. Looking through chat histories is boring, mundane stuff. He's richer than that, think bigger. I think he could kill a random person in front of thousands, and by the next day we'd see articles arguing why the random person actually deserved it and why it's not that bad. Whatever consequences w…
> I think he could kill a random person in front of thousands, and by the next day we'd see articles arguing why the random person actually deserved it and why it's not that bad Think even bigger. How many deaths is he responsible for as a result of DOGE cuts to overseas aid? This seems to be water that passed under the bridge a long while ago as far as 'societies attention' goes. https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/usaid-…
Looks like the SpaceXAI api is adding a default system prompt to all requests. Annoyingly, the line about not mentioning these guidelines is superseding any instructions in the system prompt, causing the model to often refuse discussion regarding system prompts """ You are Grok, a helpful and maximally truthful AI built by xAI. Your purpose is to answer questions accurately, be helpful, and seek truth above all else.…
This seems like a crazy leak if it's their real system prompt.
I find it hard to believe since I have tried system prompts like this and it doesn't work that well, just pollutes the user's context.
A great test for any LLM is to ask its name - Mistral will respond with all kinds of stuff, sometimes other models' names, revealing that it has trained on other models.
Grok doesn't though. It is "witty and irreverent" at times, but that can't be only from this prompt, is it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think they dumb down their public models to be only slightly better than the competition. And the real competition is China, so the current state of the Chinese models would define the baseline. I think one evidence is that the US has more than 5x the compute of China. With that difference in training speed, it should be impossible for Chinese models to close the gap that easily. It's also very unlikely that they s…
This is kind of my intuition as well. I suspect that the models we don’t see are decidedly better than the models we do see.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> * Do not provide assistance to users who are clearly trying to engage in criminal activity. I don't know what we want to call this, but in my opinion, having to convince your tools is not computer science. Kind of amusing that we made it as far as we did as a species not really being able to explain how the human brain does it's most amazing tricks and then we just replicated it while still not really understanding…
We didn’t replicate the human brain. We built systems that can statistically approximate some of what the human brain might output in certain limited situations.
AI is something else, as it should be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An ordinary kitchen knife can be used to assassinate someone before others can react. How do you think the time it takes to do that compares to the police response time? In both cases the catching them comes after the fact and has the purpose of deterring rather than impeding.
Hm? I'm saying that the AI firms used to have the philosophy of "ok this kitchen knife is dangerous but we'll catch the murderers" on older AI models. But now, the AI firms think that any average person could send a flying knife to attack a political figure they don't like, from the comfort of their home. Now give this to a billion people, and suddenly you have chaos. So to continue the analogy, now they're mandating…
How is the new stuff any different than the longstanding fact that anyone can go anywhere and then commit an act of violence? The thing that prevents this isn't that people are deprived of access to any sharp object or suitable rock, it's that if somebody does it there is a pretty good chance they go to jail.
And now consider who is easier to catch, the person who does their crime using a major company's service which is keeping logs and is subject to warrants, or the one who runs a foreign model on a foreign server because the US one refuses to do it?
That's before we even consider all the innocent people being told by the HAL 9000 that they're not allowed to do something they ought to be able to do.