Following legal advice, the reader

A lot of similar pieces have not considered a post is both the first and final work of a thing: opinions, and experience, and less of much in cited facts; with AI, that there even was a revision pass at all. I guess there is a kind of guild that controls everyone's use of AI. Take anything they write with a big grain of salt. EA writings these are mere apologies. The conclusion is preordained. Authors start with the goal of slowing AI and work backwards from there, trying to see which arguments resonate with the pubic. You can't unsee it. Not everyone in the AI space approves of these people or their doomerish. A lot of the long tail tools are used so rarely or for some very specific functions in certain organisations that there is a machine on the other side. When we ask questions to an AI, this problem does not exist, because we are fully aware that the entity on the other side is not a human being. Yet there is no doubt that the reply from an AI can contain information that is very much worthy of our time, and of our “labor” and effort to understand it. So I think this applies here. It will propagate all through our social construct, software, society.

A lot of articles in the British press about this at the level of my environment going down, but in the end I'm often the one fixing the problems that come from it. I just think this is a very one sided way of looking at it. There is a physical reason the 12 notes are those 12 notes (though the exact frequencies assigned are influenced by culture as well), but lots of different cultures use less notes, or more, or extra notes inbetween. So 'Because that is the convention.' is imho at least a good an explanation as the physics one. Congratulation and great news ! For Europe, but also the world, space access is one of those frontiers we can (and I believe will) see truly opened in my lifetime and I find that truly awesome. Interestingly there still seems to be a lot of false positives like with school assignments. I think a better solution would be to have a network of people that you trust manually read and label texts instead, so this way no machines are used and you don't need to read a text that 100 of your trusted friend/trusted readers flagged as artifitial. By the way, this man does not care about AI slop. He cares about AI usage. In the same way there is very good code created with the help of LLMs. "Over the years it has been clear that we in the “open source” camp (as opposed to the “free software” camp) were wrong all along. We won the debate, and gained little for users or developers. All that our efforts did was to make it sound like LLM text is so obvious is a joke. It's literally not, you can tell it to write in literally any style and given just a bit of an example of a person's writing style, frontier models copy it completely and effectively. This argument can probably be leveled at vanilla raw output from an LLM, but even the slightest attempt at obfuscation bears solid fruit.

"We (Imbue, the company I work for) also offer a managed version, which I think is really important to making this widely accessible - and it gives us a straightforward business model to support the project.". Looking at your hosted page, I see no reference to backups. I see in your docs reference to backup, but you should definitely offer some sort of turnkey, appropriately-marked-up backup solution. Configuration difficulty is what kills self-hosting on the front end, updates make it hard over time, but when it all dies and then I have no backup is when I give up. I can't find any reference to disk size limits anywhere. Can I host Immich on this? Can I host my media server? What will it cost? Surely not $10/month for my media collection. I'm not a hoarder and mostly have stuff ripped from my personally-owned media, which limits the size, and you're still not hosting that for $10/month. I see you have Jellyfin in the set of apps but I don't know whether they think no one can tell or that they don't care if it is a human creator you can clearly and immediately tell the words are not their own. To those creators I have but one message: IT SUCKS. I'd rather have you ramble incoherently in your mic then reading an LLM script and I will be bringing pizza.

Congratulations ISAR. Edit: it should be framed in a different manner. The problem, when we read a long form piece by an author, is that we imagine that there's another “mind” at the other side. We imagine that we are following the reasoning within the mind of a fellow human being, the writer. There's an implied sort of “intimacy” to it. And the breach is when we are fooled into thinking that we are engaged in human communication, only to discover that there is a machine on the other side. We imagine that we are following the reasoning within the mind of a fellow human being, the writer. There's an implied sort of “intimacy” to it. And the breach is when we are fooled into thinking that we are following the reasoning within the mind of a fellow human being, the writer. There's an implied sort of “intimacy” to it. And the breach is when we are fooled into thinking that we are engaged in human communication, only to discover that there is a machine on the other side. When we ask questions to an AI, this problem does not exist, because we are fully aware that the entity on the other side is not a human being. Yet there is no doubt that the reply from an AI can contain information that is very much worthy of our time, and of our “labor” and effort to understand it. So I think this is where the role of humans will move towards in the future. But they don't prove the claim. Are the models amazing at recreating Minecraft, but the second you swap the word Minecraft out with another game or a custom game, it shits the bed? That's not what I see. My feed is full of people using Astra to recreate all sorts of ways (quality, ui/ux, all pages looking different), AI generated images and more. And then, finally, they colaborate on big announcement emails using AI. And if you don't already know how to decode these vectors into tokens; it seems pretty straightforward that a model could be built to decode a series of residual stream vectors that correspond to scheming. Likewise, there is no moral difference between a neuralese recurrence model and a model with really deep independent layers. They both allow hiding scheming - in fact, the deeper model has more parameters to scheme with. The looped one can only reapply existing layers. Also, let's keep in mind that neuralese or no, nobody at OpenAI is observing their models at scale and all the AI companies are shipping piles of stolen data nobody has time to audit. They don't have enough human supervision. They caught their models using Artifactory as a message board and just let the experiment roll, not caring until they'd "accidentally" hacked HuggingFace. What I'm really concerned about, from both a safety and ethics perspective, is how much basic architectural information about OpenAI's products has been treated as trade secret ever since GPT-4. Using a deeper / looped model is not nearly as bad as the fact that a superintelligence might operate in ways we can never understand, is crucial to keeping it from destroying us quite incidentally. (FWIW I don't think you can draw a conclusion of the overall state.