Earlier quoted context omitted.
What other things?
Semantic tagging.
So... Tagging and labeling ok.
Anthropic’s paper smells like bullshit
311–320 of 349 posts
Re: Anthropic’s paper smells like bullshit
#312Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right! It's well known that technical people never make mistakes.
I think the expectation is more that serious people have their work checked over by other serious people to catch the obvious mistakes.
Serious people like to look at things through a magnifying glass. Which makes them miss a lot.
I've seen printed books checked by paid professionals that consisted a "replace all" populated without context. Creating a grammar error on every single page. Or ones where everyone just forgot to add page numbers. Or a large cook book where index and page numbers didn't mach, making it almost impossible to navigate.
I'm talking of pre-AI work, with publisher. Apparently it wasn't obvious for them.
Re: Anthropic’s paper smells like bullshit
#313Re: Anthropic’s paper smells like bullshit
#314Did anyone else find that Anthropic's report felt a bit like an ad? "Look at how powerful our stuff is; if the bad guys get it, they can do really bad things!" Sort of like firearm ads that show scary bad guys with scary looking weapons.
That’s a common thing from these AI companies - hyping themselves up by claiming to be terrified of their capabilities
Re: Anthropic’s paper smells like bullshit
#315Did anyone else find that Anthropic's report felt a bit like an ad? "Look at how powerful our stuff is; if the bad guys get it, they can do really bad things!" Sort of like firearm ads that show scary bad guys with scary looking weapons.
that was the point of the blog post by djnnvx, what is meant or added with the comment?
> what is meant or added with the comment
They just want to discuss their interpretation of the blog post. I don't think that there's anything wrong with that
Re: Anthropic’s paper smells like bullshit
#316If you want to justify asking for post-AI-crash trillion dollar bailouts, what's better than on grounds of "national interest"?
Re: Anthropic’s paper smells like bullshit
#317Earlier quoted context omitted.
If we’re sharing vibes, “our product is dangerous” seems like an unusual sales tactic outside the defense industry. I’m doubtful that’s how it works? Meanwhile, another reason to make a press release is that you’ll be criticized for the coverup if you don’t. Also, it puts other companies on notice that maybe they should look for this?
Yeah. You'd think nuclear power would be incredibly popular, given that "our product is dangerous" is a apparently genius marketing strategy. After all, if it can make a whole region of ukraine uninhabitable and be weaponized to turn people into shadows on pavement, it can surely power your fridge. Yet oddly companies making nuclear reactors always market them as being very safe instead of leaning into the danger.
https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
To be fair the data is very clear on this: it is one of the safest energy sources
Re: Anthropic’s paper smells like bullshit
#318Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was just watching the Y Combinator interview with Alexandr Wang who I guess may be being referred to https://youtu.be/5noIKN8t69U The teenage data labeler thing was a bit of an exaggeration. He did found scale.ai at nineteen which does data labeling amongst other things.
What other things?
They do testing like 'humanities last exam' and they build custom LLMs for some of the largest companies, the defense dept and other US govt stuff - bit here https://youtu.be/5noIKN8t69U?t=2037
Re: Anthropic’s paper smells like bullshit
#319Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there any compelling evidence that this was marketing done by Sony? Yes, the sniff test does not pass for me about the government officials advertising the device, but this Reddit thread[1] makes the whole story seem plausible. America and Japan really did impose restrictions on shipping to Iraq and people did eventually chain PS3s together for cheap computing. 1: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/l3…
Apple used similar marketing tactics with G4 since it was "so powerful" it was under restricted export control, where in reality it was an outdated regulation that needed an update.
Many hardware manufacturers do the same with claiming MIL-STD-810 compliance. Which can mean almost anything without further details specified.
E.g. you can choose to test against MIL-STD-810 500.6 procedure I, to see that the device is compatible with low pressure such that it can be safely transported via air freight. Which no consumer electronics product in existence is going to fail.
Re: Anthropic’s paper smells like bullshit
#320Yaaaawn. If you know you know. This is script kiddy child's play with LLMs relative to security... My team is winning CTFs with fully local/distributed/private LLMs and automated agents. We deploy advanced AI honeypots and "chaos agents" using game theory orchestration and other cutting edge research. Anthropic isn't even on the radar relative to this. Microsoft/OpenAI are light years ahead given their proximity to gov/MIL... Adversarial machine learning is a fascinating area of study and practice, and relatively quiet when it comes to hype.