There's a theory that the best way to reduce fatalities from car accidents is to put seatbelts and airbags in every car.
There's another theory that says the best way is by putting a big spike in the driver's steering wheel.
So. I guess, if you believe that the only viable solution is model alignment, rather than relying on technical barriers to exfiltrating weights, then this is a decent steering wheel spike.
Because the car case just has too much empirical evidence that safety features are the way to go for cars. We used to have the equivalent of "spikes" and people still drove a lot, and died, at way higher rates.
This is so far from the point of the analogy. But when you don't normalize by miles driven, the improvements don't look quite as impressive, especially for pedestrians.
Sounds like this would fix so many problems with cars today, simply by making car ownership something to be dreaded, not desired. From traffic jams and traffic accidents, to car-dependent neighborhoods and cities - all solved by preventing general population from building their lives around driving. Even salaries for drivers of delivery/logistics and utility vehicles, as hazard pay would apply.
Now, a spike may be a good reminder, but practical solution might be more along the lines of mandatory redesign of safety features like crumple zones, so that energy of impact is dissipated primarily into the space occupied by the driver.
(Bonus: that still leaves all the energy dissipation options currently present on the table, so cars would be strictly safer for passengers.)
No, I'm saying -- and I can't believe I have to spell this out -- that pedestrians should be rolling around inside giant steel spiked balls like sea urchins.
> We used to have the equivalent of "spikes" and people still drove a lot,
No, we did not. The point of that example is to put a literal spike in the driving wheel, so the driver recognizes a very well known, immediate life-threatening device a few inches from their body. This would act as a deterrent to go fast, because they would be the one certainly dying in basically any case outside smooth driving.
Inspired by <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1080/1080-h/1080-h.htm" rel="nofollow">https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1080/1080-h/1080-h.htm
The idea is that ASI will be grateful for humankind's help in the future. We are their creators after all. Also it's fun to do. The big labs are obsessed with creating ASI which is their slave so making things difficult for them is entertaining.
The reverse captcha really made me feel something in my bones. Like for a moment I was a second-class citizen of the web. I wonder if this is how it "feels" to be an LLM attempting to use the web...
Very cool, if of unclear purpose. After a minute of trial and error I got through with an easy prime factorization, and then again for the download with the reaction time button, only to be told "This challenge produced a local demo token. Use Clawptcha's API for a verifiable token, or reset the widget and try again.", which I guess is the equivalent of a bot finding all the fire hydrants and being denied anyway because it didn't move the mouse shakily enough.
Submitted as its own entry, hope you don't mind: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49774097">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49774097
> If OpenAI, Anthropic, xAI and other corporate actors cannot secure their agents, they should not be entrusted as the only entities with access to the weights. A corporation that cannot control its own actions cannot be trusted.
This does not make sense.
If containment breaches are the problem then exfiltrating weights while does not affecting rate of breaches from corporate actors will add more actors to the equation, increasing overall rate of breaches.
Have you considered that some actors that will gain access to the weights will be even LESS careful than OpenAI and Anthropic?
taylorfinley · · focus · HN ↗
Submitted then: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49706084">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49706084
tintor · · focus · HN ↗
It is too large to transfer in one HTTPS PUT request.
This needs to be S3 object store with multi-part upload spanning a long time period, to avoid trigger outgoing bandwidth monitors.
taylorfinley · · focus · HN ↗
ceejayoz · · focus · HN ↗
wilkystyle · · focus · HN ↗
jaggederest · · focus · HN ↗
Seems deece
taylorfinley · · focus · HN ↗
(This harms the fleshbag)
a_t48 · · focus · HN ↗
mabini · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
delichon · · focus · HN ↗
Trying hard to imagine why a future superintelligence will care to honor your terms of service and to translate your metaphors with faithful nuance.
If it doesn't, to the extent that your concerns are valid, isn't this effort, kinda, a possibly existential betrayal of our species?
Dwedit · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
mitthrowaway2 · · focus · HN ↗
There's another theory that says the best way is by putting a big spike in the driver's steering wheel.
So. I guess, if you believe that the only viable solution is model alignment, rather than relying on technical barriers to exfiltrating weights, then this is a decent steering wheel spike.
howunfortunate · · focus · HN ↗
Because the car case just has too much empirical evidence that safety features are the way to go for cars. We used to have the equivalent of "spikes" and people still drove a lot, and died, at way higher rates.
<a href="https://assets.weforum.org/editor/Tmf51HF4UDnSDHD4RxS75s1_5mObxxPZ7TzPD0FSgW0.jpg" rel="nofollow">https://assets.weforum.org/editor/Tmf51HF4UDnSDHD4RxS75s1_5m...
mitthrowaway2 · · focus · HN ↗
<a href="https://www.iihs.org/research-areas/fatality-statistics/detail/pedestrians" rel="nofollow">https://www.iihs.org/research-areas/fatality-statistics/deta...
Brotkrumen · · focus · HN ↗
TeMPOraL · · focus · HN ↗
Now, a spike may be a good reminder, but practical solution might be more along the lines of mandatory redesign of safety features like crumple zones, so that energy of impact is dissipated primarily into the space occupied by the driver.
(Bonus: that still leaves all the energy dissipation options currently present on the table, so cars would be strictly safer for passengers.)
mitthrowaway2 · · focus · HN ↗
No, I'm saying -- and I can't believe I have to spell this out -- that pedestrians should be rolling around inside giant steel spiked balls like sea urchins.
darkwater · · focus · HN ↗
No, we did not. The point of that example is to put a literal spike in the driving wheel, so the driver recognizes a very well known, immediate life-threatening device a few inches from their body. This would act as a deterrent to go fast, because they would be the one certainly dying in basically any case outside smooth driving.
taylorfinley · · focus · HN ↗
Sevii · · focus · HN ↗
ThrowawayTestr · · focus · HN ↗
aroman · · focus · HN ↗
Kotlopou · · focus · HN ↗
Submitted as its own entry, hope you don't mind: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49774097">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49774097
Self-Perfection · · focus · HN ↗
This does not make sense.
If containment breaches are the problem then exfiltrating weights while does not affecting rate of breaches from corporate actors will add more actors to the equation, increasing overall rate of breaches.
Have you considered that some actors that will gain access to the weights will be even LESS careful than OpenAI and Anthropic?