Only comment along the lines of my earlier comment, but I forgot to mention that the Chinese government is also too good at keeping secrets. Seems quite possible to me that the Chinese AI we should be worrying about is not public. Especially not in the stock market sense.

Fusion? Where?

Whoops, I meant great-grandparent, but when this gets posted it will be great-great-grandparent. I mean the joke by Junta. That's where I'm suggesting the Funny should go.

That should have been obvious, but it went off my scale in relation to stock prices. A thousandfold drop? Impressive crash.

Mod grandparent very funny.

Why does it need to be quoted against censor mods? What was offensive about your attempted joke? Or who have you offended who has mod points to waste?

In solution terms, I have a stupid idea. How about if they only change things when enough people agree to donate actual money to make the change in question? That means any new feature should be considered rather carefully including the real costs of testing it. They could also collect donations to keep things the same, as in keeping crucial servers running for the next year. Actually, the key stuff should be funded several years in advance. Actually strikes me as a nice thing knowing something will keep working for a certain period of time...

Whole branch needs a bunch of Funny mods, but I think the peak funny was probably the suggestion about the gas giants. We want Helium, not Hydrogen.

But there are still no Funny comments on the story. So sadness?

A comment about your sig, but I better quote it because some folks change theirs frequently:

I prefer to thing of them as the cowardly orange-nosing Rumplicans mostly focused on grabbing the money and running away versus the delusional and feckless Dumbocrats dreaming of flying elephants. Advantage who? Certainly not the citizens.

Pretty sure you're going for funny but I'm missing the joke. Dropping the "k" means something special in this context? Will it kill the joke if you explain it? [Almost certainly.]

My concern is different. I think stock markets have become a kind of dark joke as far as "capital allocation efficiency" or even "maximizing shareholder value" are concerned, but the Chinese situation is different. I'm worried that the Chinese government insists on a high level of control over the stock market, especially when it comes to the timing of major fluctuations. In particular, I think they may not care much about burning some FinTech speculators, but they might be thinking in terms of burning America's AI industry by exploiting the political situation as it exists right now.

These are speculations above my pay grade and outside of any official certified qualification, but my uncommon sense says that sometimes it's rational to want things that went up vigorously to come down gently. I actually think that's a big chunk of what happened to the Chinese real estate "industry" a few years back, and now the Chinese leadership may be thinking about killing two birds with one stone by controlling the timing of this... Call it a mini-crash? Anyway, controlling the timing in favor of collateral damage to their main competitors in the AI field. I'm strongly expecting this contagion to spread to the American stock market which is much more focused on AI speculations, and the timing is beyond suspicious. I think Xi may dislike the YOB underneath a veneer of diplomatic and enigmatic smiles, while the YOB has only been concerned about driving stock prices up as high as possible as quickly as possible. YUGE vulnerability there, and crashing the American stock market just before the election might be a good thing in Xi's perspective... We'll soon see if they've got a better grasp of the timing of the stock market game than the YOB's sycophants. Maybe I should visit a prediction market to see what's going on inside that insane failure of FinTech?

In general I'm deeply suspicious of economics, but this seems to be a scenario where economics may be coinciding with ekronomic thinking. Remember that time >> money and then this could be a timing game that is going to make a lot of virtual money disappear... And then pop up elsewhere? Perhaps somewhere in China?

Young

Changes average out for net positive result.

Mature

Sum of changes comes out around zero overall.

Old age

None of the above.

And then you die, when you stop the changes and stop having nice days.

But this is SUCH a hilariously funny story. The P in IPO must stand for Panic. "We gotta grab the money NOW because our AI told us the bubble is gonna burst RSN!"

No idea where they think they can run to once they've grabbed the money. Even funnier since the money has become a virtual fantasy. Maybe the P could stand for phantasy as in phantasy money? (I love how broken English spelling is.)

I guess I should try to clarify, but I'm not optimistic about making it clear.

I think Claude behaves as though there are implicit personality variables, but I am not clear how they get set. The history of the interaction is important, but I suspect some of it is random, and there is probably part of it that is indirect, related to the path that has been pursued through a particular solution space. The important effects, though I must say my experiences are (deliberately and intentionally) limited, affect how Claude balances between guessing and asking for clarification.

I do think a lot of the hacking of genAIs could be interpreted as playing games with the settings of implicit personality variables. However at the same time I do not think the genAIs are human beings and the do not have personalities in any human sense. However, insofar as we can understand their behaviors, it may make sense to think of some of their behaviors as related to patterns that resemble patterns of human personalities. Sometimes we even have names for those traits, but I'm sure that the genAI cannot really be described that way. Maybe I'm really talking about a UI issue?

NAK

I wonder about artcraft, while the 13 apps are very impressive I don't see how it is done by them, as the plan directory is local.

They primarily manage company-internal CAs for big businesses, which they seem to do well. AFAICT, they noticed that their security infrastructure was compliant for managing a global CA, and thought they might as well also have that as a product. However, there are some operational differences between an enterprise CA and a public one, including that companies want to issue client certs to employees but nobody really does global client certs. That means that they had an intermediate CA for global client certs that they never used, but it was in the standard trust store, and nobody tested that it was handled right until Wayne just went through the standard trust store making sure a new certificate weakness detector didn't give false positives.

So eMudhra correctly handled all the certs they issued, and all the certs they used to sign them, but they got some extra CA certs trusted that they didn't really need, because it would make their side business more similar to their main business, and this caused a major problem.

Chances are that they actually got a real random number out of a HSM for the bad CA certs, but accidentally made the certs with the index of the random number instead of the actual number. (That is, they got the 4th random number and made a cert for 4 instead of the number.) I wouldn't be surprised if they stored the correct private key, which would have made leaf certs that didn't validate because the intermediate was wrong, but they never used it to find this problem.

So do you have any thoughts about implicit personality variables Claude is hiding within each instantiation?