Your own quote makes it clear. "When given the CVE description, GPT-4..."

GPT-4 is already pre-trained. "Pretrained" is literally the P in the name GPT. They used GPT-4, *combined with* the CVE descriptions. They didn't alter the training of GPT-4, 3, or the other models. If they altered the training of GPT-4, it would no longer *be* GPT-4, but a modified version of GPT-4.

Bing Copilot searches the internet to find documentation. This study provided the documentation via API. It's exactly the same thing, just different document sources fed into the API.

The headline makes it quite clear, it does this by "reading security advisories." GPT-4 isn't *trained* with data that includes the advisories, which might well have been released after the cutoff date. What you may not realize, is that recent implementations of GPT-4, such as Bing Copilot, don't just rely on the training data. After you type a question, it often does a web search for related information, digests it, and summarizes what it found. The cutoff date is meaningless with this approach.

I've used Copilot, for example, to help with AWS Cognito API calls for versions that were released after the cutoff. Copilot has no trouble with this kind of thing, because it searches online for the relevant documents, digests them, and spits out code.

For not being a programmer, I think you're onto something there, you should create a startup company!

...are just better at not getting caught.

It's exactly the way GPT-4 helps programmers accomplish any programming task. It searches the internet for solutions, then regurgitates them in the form of code. There are two sides of the coin, when it comes to GPT code generation. It provides coding assistance, it has no way to distinguish between good motives and bad.

Oh, it can code all right. About like a first-year computer science major can code. It can look up stuff about the problem at hand (it's *really* good at that) and apply it by writing some code. Can you *trust* that code to actually work? Not in the least. You can't even trust that it will compile. But in the hands of an actual developer, it can provide an enormous shortcut.

Sounds like a lot of hand-waving and conspiracy theories to me. Yet, you didn't dispute a single one of the statements I made.

The only reason nuclear weapons have not proliferated, is because they are so difficult and expensive to produce. Despite this difficulty, yes, the treaty has been flouted. Israel, Pakistan, and India have all built and tested nuclear weapons, despite the treaty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... Further, North Korea, Iraq, Romania, Libya, and Iran, have all refused to comply with the treaty.

By contrast, flouting an international treaty on AI development would be very easy and cheap. It's possible for a lone developer to single-handedly build, refine, and deploy AI in such a way that it would not comply. In the age of the internet, borders mean nothing. My guess is that every single nation, whether or not they are a part to such an agreement, would be in violation.

Agreements and treaties are a good thing. But we should not point AI with a broadly negative brush. That would be like banning nuclear power, for fear of someone producing nuclear bombs. Balance is key. I will not support a ban, nor should our leaders.

That's a lot of emotional accusations without any substance.

Do you dispute that Hamas has never accepted Israel's right to exist? Do you dispute that Hamas started this war, and have never conceded they were wrong to attack? Do you dispute that Hamas seized power of Gaza illegally? Do you dispute that Israel has a right to exist, to defend itself? Do you dispute that 16 wars against Israel were instigated by Palestinians or other surrounding Arab nations? Do you dispute that antisemitism was mounting long before WWII?

I think not. All you have is your unwavering support for Hamas, regardless of the facts.

What is privacy, exactly?

We live in an interconnected world. Anything you do that affects someone else, by definition can't be private. And that covers just about everything you do.

Isn't it (for sale)???

We trade our privacy for things ALL THE TIME.

If you use Google, or Slashdot, or any other free site, you are trading your privacy for free stuff.

I provided a links to my sources. You'll notice that Fox News wasn't one of them. Fox News is nothing more than a tabloid.

It seems you've run out of logical arguments.

If a person's neighborhood became infested with gangs, who attacked his family 16 times, raping, robbing, and killing his family members each time, nobody would criticize him for buying a big gun and shooting the next burglar that broke in. Well, other gang members might criticize him. But other law-abiding people would not.

Like it or not, Israel is an internationally-recognized nation, a member of the UN. The world of law-abiding countries, has recognized its right to exist and its right to defend itself. Palestinians have not. They have *never* agreed to leave Israel in peace, under any circumstances or as part of any proposed treaty. They have rather continued to attack and attack and attack. This time, Israel met them with a really big gun, and started shooting.

I believe Israel's war is as just as any war ever has been. Did they make mistakes? Yes. Were they wrong to attack, and continue to fight Gaza (which has never surrendered or returned its remaining hostages)? Absolutely not.

Four UN member nations did not ratify the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....

*Almost all* is not *all*. And as we have seen with attempts to band together to eliminate tax havens, it only takes one nation to thwart the dodgers. It's not an accident that large corporations around the world have made Ireland their international headquarters.

The context of the article, is a US-specific "AI Safety Institute," so no, I didn't infer that you were talking about a worldwide treaty.

Speaking of treaties, what treaty has *ever* been adopted by all nations, or even by all developed nations? It doesn't happen, so why are we even talking about such things? It certainly wouldn't happen related to AI, regarding which such an attempted treaty would give non-signers a distinct advantage.

I agree, your *impossible* scenario wouldn't be as bad as all the other *possible* scenarios.

These days, most movies are "good enough" in a regular movie theater. IMAX excels at this type of movie.