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

“Too dangerous to release” or just too expensive?

kingy.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 189 posts

Re: “Too dangerous to release” or just too expensive?

#101

Post by gpugreg »

jorisw wrote: post #75
srdjanr wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read it, and it is AI

I don't think it is. Just the (somewhat lame) graphics are.

Sorry to say, but it almost certainly is AI.

- 51 EM-dashes

- Section headings

- Excessive repetitions: "The [...] are real. The [...] are real. The [...] is real. All three things are true at once."

- Excessive use of "genuine", "genuinely", "honest", "real", "true"

- Excessive use of "gap": "near-term gap", "the Compute Gap", "the Narrative Gap", "critical gap"

- Corny and meaningless closing sentence: "Understanding both parts is the beginning of taking AI deployment decisions seriously."

Re: “Too dangerous to release” or just too expensive?

#102

Post by tiahura »

gofreddygo wrote: post #82
jorisw wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you say. I actually read the piece and didn't get AI vibes from it all, except for the graphics

there are 31 emdashes in that piece. the domain ends with _ai_

I can't imagine why a system designed to reproduce the best writing styles would frequently use em dashes.

Re: “Too dangerous to release” or just too expensive?

#103

Post by drakythe »

fwipsy wrote: post #93
saithound wrote: post #63

It's pretty clear at this point that Mythos' capability to discover and exploit zero-day vulnerabilities at scale is but an incremental improvement over existing models like the ones available to OpenAI's Plus/Pro subscribers. Anthropic tries to create marketing hype around Mythos using two psychological tricks. 1. Put large numbers in the headlines. "Mythos discovered 271 vulnerabilities in Firefox" makes the model…

I'm fairly certain Amodei believes the "too dangerous to release" hype himself. Even if it's just an incremental improvement, better than getting frog-boiled by repeated 20% improvements until someone builds bioweapons in their backyard.

He's made so many statements that fall under the "boy who cried wolf" category that even if he _does_ believe these statements he needs to be managed better. I'll never forget Anthropic's huge "Oh my God, the AI blackmailed a researcher to save itself!" and the prompt effectively told the AI to do that and gave it forged emails with easy blackmail targets, as if this isn't a common trope in mystery or suspense books/television/fanfiction, all of which Claude (and others) have been trained on.

Re: “Too dangerous to release” or just too expensive?

#104

Post by estearum »

vrganj wrote: post #25
upmind wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The goal for anthropic is safe AGI. A) this model is dangerous in the hands of consumers. B)They do not want China to train on these models.

"Safe" for who?

Approximately "western liberal democracies"

Re: “Too dangerous to release” or just too expensive?

#105

Post by estearum »

repelsteeltje wrote: post #26
estearum wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah we have literally no examples of more intelligent beings accidentally or purposefully wiping out less intelligent beings. Any time such a scenario could have conceivably happened, the less intelligent beings were able to foresee the methods, mechanisms, and motivations of the more intelligent beings and were able to counteract it.

I get the sarcasm, but what about Neanderthals versus Homo Sapiens?

What about it?

Re: “Too dangerous to release” or just too expensive?

#106

Post by jstummbillig »

This makes it sound like some kind of open question or even mystery.

Amodei himself stated quite clearly in recent interviews that they simply can't satisfy all demand, compute wise. Of course, Mythos could get more of the already too small pie, but clearly it's a more resource intensive model and would further increase strain.

Re: “Too dangerous to release” or just too expensive?

#108

Post by [deleted] »

saithound wrote: post #63

It's pretty clear at this point that Mythos' capability to discover and exploit zero-day vulnerabilities at scale is but an incremental improvement over existing models like the ones available to OpenAI's Plus/Pro subscribers. Anthropic tries to create marketing hype around Mythos using two psychological tricks. 1. Put large numbers in the headlines. "Mythos discovered 271 vulnerabilities in Firefox" makes the model…

[deleted]

Re: “Too dangerous to release” or just too expensive?

#109

Post by aleph_minus_one »

spzb wrote: post #7
djvu97 wrote: post #3

> Resource Limit Is Reached The website is temporarily unable to service your request as it exceeded resource limit. Please try again later. I guess it was too dangerous to even read the article

https://archive.is/31PFC

On https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48094138 Imustaskforhelp explained why one should better post archive.org links instead of archive.is links.

So, here an archive.org link:

> https://web.archive.org/web/20260515135354/https://kingy.ai/...

Re: “Too dangerous to release” or just too expensive?

#110

Post by estearum »

miroljub wrote: post #35
estearum wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah we have literally no examples of more intelligent beings accidentally or purposefully wiping out less intelligent beings. Any time such a scenario could have conceivably happened, the less intelligent beings were able to foresee the methods, mechanisms, and motivations of the more intelligent beings and were able to counteract it.

If we look at our human history, there are millions of examples where less intelligent beings destroyed highly advanced civilizations. It was never about intelligence, but about willingness to destroy (willingness to defend is not enough). Babylon, Egypt, Persia, Greece, Rome, China, ... I won't mention current examples ...

1. "Less advanced civilization" != less intelligent people

2. The outcome of near-peer competition is surely highly dependent on factors like brutality, luck, tactics etc... the competition between the defenders of crops (i.e. makers of pesticides) and insects is not. Not only are the insects destroyed en masse successfully, but neither side even recognizes itself as party to a competition. The insect has no conception of a crop, even when he walks in it, much less a pesticide, even when he tastes it. The pesticide sprayer assigns zero moral valence to his daily genocide.

Do you have a reason to believe the gap between AI (not LLMs specifically, but AI generally) and human intelligence will peak near the difference between human competitors (what... 20-30 IQ points)?

If so, please share why you believe this.

Post reply on HN