51–60 of 88 posts
Dumb question but why are chemical weapons always addressed as a risk with llms? Is the idea that they contain how to make chemical weapons or that they would guide someone on how? Would there not already be websites that contain that information? How is an llm different, i guess, from some sort of anarchist cookbook thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s not quite true. Take a look at all the billionaires destroying society. Being evil is the surest way to get to get rich. In fact it’s the only way to amass that level of capital: there’s no ethical billionaire.
This feels like a wild overgeneralization. People can become rich without resorting to evil methods, especially now with global markets and software. Case in point: Minecraft was wildly successful, and now Notch is a billionaire.
This reads more like an advertisement for Mythos, on the first glance
I guess maybe, but then do those documents lose value as technical documents? Not necessarily at all, so I don’t see the point. How are you supposed to describe a useful technical thing to users?
So Opus 4.7 is measurably worse at long-context retrieval compared to Opus 4.6. Opus 4.6 scores 91.9% and Opus 4.7 scores 59.2%. At least they're transparent about the model degradation. They traded long-context retrieval for better software engineering and math scores.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Smart people have economic opportunities that align them away from being evil" For some definition of evil, some of the time, ok. But as economic opportunities compound (looking at the behavior of the ultra-rich), it seems there's at least strong correlation in the other direction, if not full-on "root of all evil" causation.
Sure, but that’s not “slaughter a stadium of people with drones” evil or “poison the water supply” evil or “take out unprotected electrical substations” evil. So much infrastructure is very soft because the evil people aren’t smart enough to conceive of or conduct an attack.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This feels like a wild overgeneralization. People can become rich without resorting to evil methods, especially now with global markets and software. Case in point: Minecraft was wildly successful, and now Notch is a billionaire.
Eeeeh not the best example maybe?
Dumb question but why are chemical weapons always addressed as a risk with llms? Is the idea that they contain how to make chemical weapons or that they would guide someone on how? Would there not already be websites that contain that information? How is an llm different, i guess, from some sort of anarchist cookbook thing.
This reads more like an advertisement for Mythos, on the first glance
I never understand these critiques. If something is useful and you’re selling it, does that mean any technical document describing its usefulness becomes marketing? I guess maybe, but then do those documents lose value as technical documents? Not necessarily at all, so I don’t see the point. How are you supposed to describe a useful technical thing to users?
For context, the word "Mythos" appears 331 times in a 221 page document. "Opus 4.6" appears 240 times, so a reference to a model that nobody has really used happens more often than the reference to the last generation model.
So Opus 4.7 is measurably worse at long-context retrieval compared to Opus 4.6. Opus 4.6 scores 91.9% and Opus 4.7 scores 59.2%. At least they're transparent about the model degradation. They traded long-context retrieval for better software engineering and math scores.