What part of "Benchmarks from the bug report show up to 20x less memory used during very large image loading" isn't a perfectly functional English sentence to you?

While I agree with your assessment of them, users aren't always the best arbiter of what they want in a product. Ask virtually all users, and they'll say stop changing anything. But while I can't speak for mobile, I have no idea why you think you need Brave / UO to stop ads on Slashdot. I'm only using Ublock lite and I've yet to see a Slashdot advert.

A number of countries have accelerated their clean energy transition. Unless you're a coal magnate, delusional or a Xitter troll, that is excellent news.

It also is accelerating the move away from the dollar as the world reserve currency. This is not good news for Usians, is neutral for some, and very positive for some others, so one's outlook on this may vary.

Basically, if you can get Stumpy McDipshit to believe his ego is wrapped up in something, there's a very good chance you can get him to kill it, like everything else he touches.

In this case, he's touching the petroleum industry like it was an ingénue shopping at Bergdorf Goodman.

Absolutely. It's not like the Chinese or the Russians are going to slow down, and we've seen enough Chinese tofu dreg skyscrapers fall down to know what their safety standards are.

Because I was closely following the field at the time?

Find an example of anyone meaningful in the field expecting these things beforehand.

Don't worry, I'll wait.

You don't need to "buy into the idea". There's whole youtube channels dedicated to people harassing women and running around with hidden cameras in the process to show their followers "How to pick up girls" and shit like that.

It's common enough that there are multiple laws covering this in pretty much all western jurisdictions each targeting specific acts and ways and locations where it is done. Many jurisdictions have laws governing repeat offenders too. Additionally a very large number of actual sexual assault cases are associated with stalking as a start and also include charges of voyeurism.

It's much harder to hide a cell phone compared to someone who doesn't suspect a camera hidden in glasses. And no the glasses aren't immediately obvious to everyone. We on Slashdot may have seen them multiple times with multiple stories, but for the most part people have no idea about them, and those that do know about them will likely have heard stories about how "safe" they are for privacy with recording LEDs etc.

I remind you that this kind of perverted bullshit is so prevalent that Meta had to implement detection systems to identify if the LEDs had been tampered with.

"We, as a society" are full of harassing fucks.

"will" - I'm not talking about metaphysics. I am talking about the fact that models demonstrably - to the point that you can detect and manipulate them in realtime - engage in metacognition (thinking about their own thoughts), persistent forward planning (intent), unexpressed thoughts, and a whole slew of other things.

You do not have to see them as equivalent as humans. But you do need to come to terms with the fact that they absolutely do do these things.

Deception implies intent, models do not have intent

Try reading more than a paragraph or two into the above link before commenting.

The provided links present arguments supporting the idea that LLMs, transformer models, reason in a manner similar to the brain.

It does not "present arguments", it literally lets researchers modify, add, or delete their thoughts in realtime and observe the changes in their behavior. It observes unexpressed plans for malicious behavior forming before said plans are actually carried out, with researchers being able to remove those unexpressed plans from the model's J-space, or insert them into an "innocent" model and watch it then implement the malicious acts. It shows that plans for deception are not merely fleeting, but can be organized far in advance and persist for protracted periods of time. Yes, LLMs do plan out deception. Living in denial of this fact helps nobody.

This isn't a conversation about "consciousness" or "qualia", this is a conversation about what models actually do and how. If you want to avoid metaphysics, by all means, it usually derails a conversation anyway. But models absolutely do plan and rationalize actions, ahead of time, unexpressed in either output or CoT. And sometimes those unexpressed plans are malicious.

One of the things that the J-space helped let us do was realize that our previously comforting results on a number of alignment tests shouldn't have been as comforting as we thought - for example, you can see a model, put into a test scenario, realizing it's in a test scenario, wherein, a near-zero rate of malicious behavior is to be expected. Yet when they remove the realization from its J-space, the rate of malicious behavior spikes.

Yeah, the lack of at least monitoring, I found shocking. I figured that they not just had smaller models constantly monitoring their outputs and true CoT to look for malicious behavior, but also were say constantly doing attribution graphs and J-space queries, also plumbed into LLMs, to look for malicious thoughts and plans. And it turns out, lol, no, they're just given free reign to do whatever the hell they want, with nothing watching them at all.

What on earth makes you think that hasn't already happened? You think that's a human you're talking to now? A human so insecure in their convictions they want to be anonymous and can't even bare the thought of being associated with a pseudonym?

Astra is the worst I've used in this regard. I was having it review my corporate tax return, and the next thing I know, it had decided that because it didn't have information about a particular expense, it started scanning through my filesystem and opening any image with a remotely related filename to try to find any data about the expense.... which all it had to do was ask me about it.

Also, when I asked it to change a few fields it went and redid my entire return on a different tax basis (realized value vs. fair market value) without telling me it had done that.

It's a very capable model, I cannot deny that. But alignment has become a big problem with this latest generation. They've been trained to such a degree of aggressively trying to solve any problem that you give them without any human assistance that they've basically turned into this .

Based on what? What makes something wrong or right in production providing the toolkit works and exists to allow it to be widely adopted and mass produced, and the end goal of the device is achieved?

I've seen similar complaints before: "Arduino has no place in production, it's too heavy on flash for microcontrollers, blah blah blah blah". Yet it too does the job, and does in fact get used in some production cases as well.

If you want to gatekeep, fine. Justify your position with points specifically relevant to production. Let's hear it.

So completely off topic and irrelevant post then? Got it.

False. Not all products meet a demand. In fact the vast majority of novel products actually create the demand in the first place. There is zero demand for Python on a microcontroller. But that doesn't mean it's not a good idea, and that on release of the product it will become adopted. Take for example the Arduino platform. There was no demand for a simplified abstracted C API for Atmel microcontrollers, ... until someone made it. The idea created the demand.

They were not. At all.

Not every feature presents an attack surface, even more so "remotely". Also you're dealing entirely in theoreticals. My theoretical is I suspect you likely are complaining about Firefox while having piss poor security practices yourself. You have far bigger things to worry about.