Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dario, Please

pop.rdi.sh

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–287 of 287 posts

Re: Dario, Please

#281

Post by pjc50 »

zahlman wrote: post #179
includenotfound wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "sandbox" they used was apparently made of thin paper exposed under a day of heavy rain, too. You'd think, if they truly believed the model is so dangerous, they'd run it in a VM without a network adapter.

I brought this up to someone else and was told that airgapping is apparently much more expensive than I'd naively think. I still think this is a sign that they are not taking their own rhetoric seriously.

Not that airgapping is expensive so much as it's really, really inconvenient once you take it seriously. You need to build special rooms for it, you can't just API out to a datacenter. You need to have processes for requesting data be sent into the box. And so on.

Re: Dario, Please

#282

Post by w4der »

zahlman wrote: post #179
includenotfound wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "sandbox" they used was apparently made of thin paper exposed under a day of heavy rain, too. You'd think, if they truly believed the model is so dangerous, they'd run it in a VM without a network adapter.

I brought this up to someone else and was told that airgapping is apparently much more expensive than I'd naively think. I still think this is a sign that they are not taking their own rhetoric seriously.

> I brought this up to someone else and was told that airgapping is apparently much more expensive than I'd naively think.

These labs are one of the most valuable and heavily funded enterprises in the whole world, that they can't properly air-gap their systems to me reads as if their "agents" and LLMs are not as good as they say they are, because if they were, why would it be hard/expensive to air gap a system? They already scraped most if not all of the internet, where did that data go?

Re: Dario, Please

#283

Post by notsylver »

pjc50 wrote: post #281
zahlman wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I brought this up to someone else and was told that airgapping is apparently much more expensive than I'd naively think. I still think this is a sign that they are not taking their own rhetoric seriously.

Not that airgapping is expensive so much as it's really, really inconvenient once you take it seriously. You need to build special rooms for it, you can't just API out to a datacenter. You need to have processes for requesting data be sent into the box. And so on.

I feel like there is a reasonable compromise between "yeah they have full internet access" and "separate airgapped rooms that require multiple levels of authorization to access" that would make this a lot better without that much more work. I feel like they're doing it intentionally to show how dangerous these models are and that the government must step in and protect them

Re: Dario, Please

#284

Post by steveBK123 »

27183 wrote: post #189
steveBK123 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “a swarm of agents could be capable of taking over the entire internet with a persistent botnet.” I also find this whole "its so good, its scary" flex a little less impressive when you consider they access to millions of GPUs? The AI buildout has been one of, if not the largest, focussed capital investment in history. The 2 big AI labs are the final customer for something like 20-33% of all datacenter compute in th…

IIUC it's an open question whether they have the electricity to actually run all the "compute" they own on paper. That aside, I'm not sure why it's particularly interesting they have all this "compute" (let's just assume for the sake of argument it's all "live"--that is they can actually run workloads on all of the "compute" they have on paper). So what if it's the biggest amount ever? Why would that be meaningful? I…

Well yes, we used to talk about "supercomputers" in the hands of state actors for cracking into enemy systems and places like science labs for working on big hard problems of DNA, the universe, and the like.

So I think part of what is going on now is not just the method (LLMs) but the means (supercomputer levels of compute) at unprecedented scale of concentration.

Re: Dario, Please

#285

Post by Agentlien »

prodigycorp wrote: post #157
darksaints wrote: post #100

I'm pretty confident in asserting that no industry in the history of industry has ever gone from birth to full regulatory capture faster than the AI industry has.

With all due respect, you need to brush up on history. Many industries were birthed from regulatory capture.

Could you please list a few? Sounds like interesting history lessons.

Re: Dario, Please

#286

Post by bkaae »

margalabargala wrote: post #231
vishnugupta wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People generally follow them because they expect to be caught and punished. Laws are the last line of defense. People don’t do bad things primarily because their human nature and moral compass stops them from doing so.

That's not really true. People don't do bad things because they have nothing to gain from them. Ask someone to do something evil as part of their job, they'll often do it. There's lots of ways that you could go out of your way to hurt someone and get away with it. There are not that many ways you could go out of your way to hurt someone, get away with it, and significantly profit.

I could do plenty of small bad things all the time and gain something small from it - yet I don't. I drive the speed limit when no one is around, I throw thrash in the right bag, I try to keep my general pollution levels at a reasonable place, etc.

I have plenty to gain from not following the rules, but I would not feel good about myself.

Re: Dario, Please

#287

Post by 1dom »

StevenWaterman wrote: post #221
dansquizsoft wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He also didn't say it would be "solved". He said in 2025 it would be writing almost all the code "in 12 months", but that it would also still need programmers to guide and manage it at that point. People always leave off the end of his quote. And this is actually, scarily, true...

It's crazy to me that people will misquote him then claim AI hasn't complete changed software development. Even just the last 6 months. Like look around! It would literally have been magic 5 years ago!

I think this is the definition of a polarising topic. It's very hard to hold a sensible middle ground without everyone wanting to take it to extremes of either "AI is just useless autocomplete" or "AI has solved software engineering".
Post reply on HN