So last week's "summit" went that well, eh?

So we're going to use an AI to monitor AIs to make sure they're not doing anything naughty? Pretty sure I've seen that movie already...

Not to mention, who exactly pays for Sentry to run? Golly, if some completely random AI hardware manufacturer were to somehow profit off designing and selling a scheme to waste extra tokens on yet another layer of supervision, that would almost look just a wee bit unethical!

That wasn't quite the response I expected - I guess I'm not entirely clear on whether you were mocking those guardrails, or presenting them as legitimately (albeit perversely) meaningful.

Either way, my central point was "why not both". It's entirely possible to be neutral, in the sense of calculating the mean (in the internal thought-vector sense) of all available viewpoints. If, however, 99% of sources are talking positively about some trashy conspiracy theory - Any version of "consensus" is itself going to lean pretty far into wingnut territory. In that regard, I think we might actually be agreeing?

We can meaningfully ask the question "For each location a robotaxi has been involved in some sort of incident, how does the incident rate for both humans and other robotaxies comapre?"

That's not a meaningless number, and it's entirely possible Waymo really is doing better than humans - But only in situations Waymo gets to cherry-pick simply by enforcing their designated service areas. Meanwhile, let me know when a Waymo can successfully navigate overgrown single-track dirt roads common in my area. Anyone know offhand if they have moose in the Philippines?

I'm a fan of drastically slowing AI development until we've solved the alignment problem, but a kill switch ain't it.

What would a kill switch really do? An AI is fundamentally nothing more than a description of it's topology and a set of a few billion weights. Implementing that topology and running those weights is the easy part and any coder worth a damn could roll their own (performance aside) with minimal effort - without bothering with a kill switch, if they so choose.

The only way to even come close to enforcing a kill order would be for every sufficiently-performant processing platform to enforce some kind of blacklist of known-evil weights in a way that's resilient across different quantization levels. And even then, simply running pre-killswitch drivers would still be a trivial way to circumvent any such restrictions entirely. Or for the truly determined, you can run even top frontier models on vastly underpowered hardware like a mid-range desktop CPU. Sure, your throughput might be measured in minutes per token, but realtime feedback isn't going to change the answer to "how do I hack the Gibson". An accurate answer a few days from now is likely to be just as useful in the vast majority of situations.

That all assumes there are more-or-less equally relevant answers available from both trusted and biased sources.

If someone asks about Hunter Biden's penis, that assumption is false, and the vast majority of relevant, if not necessarily accurate, information will come from partisan shills. There aren't any noteworthy safety issues, aside from the abstract risk of a third term leading to our next civil war. And there isn't any middle ground, since the response to the right's delusions isn't rebuttal but rather, a pretty much uniform "what the fuck is wrong with you people?" from the left.

We always need to remember AI isn't "smart", it's nothing but autocorrect on crack. It can't meaningfully evaluate those criteria we're giving it in any way except shifting the probabilities of multiple competing matches. If there's only one viewpoint represented in vast majority of training data, that's the one it's forced to choose.

I don't think there is a solution. In all seriousness, if I were starting my career from scratch today, I would avoid anything that can be done purely remotely, and quite likely go into a skilled trade - Not romanticizing "hands-on" work, I realize it has its own down-sides, but it's becoming increasingly clear we'll still have elevator techs and plumbers longer than we'll have programmers and accountants.

AI has effectively already killed white collar jobs going forward, whether or not those outside tech have noticed yet. It can more-or-less replace junior-level workers today, and with no juniors there will be no seniors later and no principals twenty+ years from now. Though even if we somehow find a way to backfill the experience pipeline, I have little doubt AI will be coming for even the best of us within a decade. Maybe it'll hit some unforeseen ceiling before then, but that's not a bet I'm eager to take.

Respectfully, no, it absolutely doesn't.

Their reasoning sounds plausible only if read from a "business weasel" perspective. If there's a market for RPis with more lower quality RAM, nobody is "undercutting" RPF; they're selling the products they want to, at the price they want to, and choosing not to offer big/slow/cheap OEM RAM configurations. And even if someone could undercut them on the exact same components - So what??? RPF may be a non-profit, but I am not!

The RPi is specifically targeted at DIY'ers, providing a cheap and stable base platform for us to add on whatever freaky shit we want to. Blocking owners from doing exactly that, whether it mean adding on a toaster or oodles of garbage RAM, is some classic Apple-level control freak BS and fundamentally antithetical to their entire purpose. Buh-bye goodwill when it looks like RPi is working hard to make itself just another whore of an SBC manufacturer. And I can promise RPF if they really want to compete in that market, China is going to eat them for lunch.

So your argument is, "broken window theory applies to highly regulated nuclear waste"

The people who dumped it there are long dead, or will soon be aging out of life anyways. It's everybody's problem now. Being on the literal bottom of the ocean and "missing" for many decades it's probably not doing much harm down there. If the ocean evaporates enough that a human can get within 2 miles of the stuff, we'll have bigger problems to worry about anyways.

Whoosh!

Is Nvidia, an S&P500 listed company which grew 8x faster than Bitcoin over the same period, also just gambling?

That said, let's be serious for a moment - The real implied payoff here is access to "A network of hundreds of instructors, hiring partners and guest speakers includes OpenAI co-founder Sam Altman, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, neuroscientist Andrew Huberman and Microsoft chairman and CEO Satya Nadella".

Of course, that's really just going to be for the "Founding" class hand-picked (and largely sired) by those same big names. By the time suckers are signing up to pay for that access, the school will be just another diploma mill milking naive upper middle class kids "on par with the cost of an elite private university", only to discover the curriculum is 100% pre-recorded webinars in every way inferior to the likes of OpenCourseWare or Khan Academy's free videos on YouTube.

That's total, not YoY. Calculating since the first time BTC received serious attention in late 2013 to today's price, BTC gained 73.3x in 13 years, or 39% YoY average. Over the same 13 years, Nvidia went from a 2013 high of 0.41 to a high yesterday of 229.98, for a mind-blowing 561x gain, or 62% YoY. Admittedly Nvidia is unique in that regard, though we could come up with another handful in the 40x range. And if we want to bring the likes of Kalshi into the mix, you can find high double digit gains almost on a daily basis (though I won't defend that as any more legitimate than your local bookie).

The more important problem with your phrasing is the word "investment". BTC is not an investment, it's an intangible commodity. It has no fundamentals, no sales, no revenue, no debt, no equity, no overhead (though the cost of mining has stayed in the same ballpark as the price per BTC for the simple reason that if it goes lower than the expected cost of power, more people mine, and vice-versa). It is "worth" what someone is willing to pay for it, no more, and no less.

Despite what the haters may feel, it's not a scam. It sure as hell isn't something Grandma should be day-trading in her retirement portfolio; but that's a function of volatility, not because it's any more or less safe than gold or FCOJ.

During the campaign, she accurately predicted almost every atrocity the administration has inflicted on both the US and the world in general, over the past two years.

When our Stupor Intelligent admin accuses his enemies of something, it's because he did the same thing earlier that day. See the connection? We just need to figure out how Hunter Biden's penis factors in, and where Obama was on 9/11.

Pssst - President Autopen has been out of office for 611 days. And before you go there, Smart Black President has been out of office for 3543 days.

At some point you need to accept reality: If there's a turd sitting on (or at) the Resolute Desk, it wasn't teleported there from the past.