the innovation here, and why they call it loops, is building in a quality-checking round into the top level agent execution loop which checks the current iteration output against the LLM's understanding of the detailed goal of the user. It identifies deltas (remaining problems or weaknesses) and launches a new round of design, coding, and testing to address those. It keeps looping like that til it believes it has a high quality solution that will meet the expressed goal of the end user.

The only thing about the way this is being presented that doesn't make sense to me is that surely the whole process must start with at least one prompt by the human to the looping-sw-dev-system. So it's not true that you no longer prompt it. So it's hype to say you don't prompt at all. They're really trying to say you don't have to do your second and subsequent error correcting or refining prompts. It will do those for you.

a. So if I talk to someone at a party and say "Hi my name is Arthur Dent" when it is not, I am guilty of a felony for false representation of myself as someone else? No. I suppose that the false representation must be part of a larger crime. So what, in this case, is the larger crime that the test-taker has commited, as opposed to that the student has committed? Also, it would seem that the extent of the student's misdeed is academic misconduct (i.e. violating the aforementioned implicit if not explicit contract with the institution.). Punishment could be up to expulsion. Definitely not jail time. So why does the assistant in the "crime" get jailtime?

It would seem to me that the issue here is that the powerful and established institutions' academic reputations have been damaged by widespread exam cheating. Surely in a just world that is a case for a civil lawsuit against the exam taker for hire. This is only criminal because the institutions have wielded excessive influence on the justice system because of their embarassment.

b. If I use someone's login account with their permission, I am acting as an agent for them, and liability for any misdeeds must flow primarily to them, as the initiator (giving me the credentials) and requester of the act. I may be jointly liable but certainly not justly more than the "hirer of the gun" is.
So the fact that the students are not each being charged with the same criminal offence and being given the same punishment is likely a class privilege issue.

Hmm. Grounds for his conviction seem suspect and eligible for appeal:

1. The person who has the contract with the academic institution, and thus the person who has committed fraud in relation to that contract, is the student, not the stand-in exam taker. The exam taker has a separate contract with the student, which taken in a narrow contract, was not performed fraudulently but rather at the instruction of the student and as specified and requested by the student. That is a private matter.

2. His use of the students' credentials was authorized by each of the students, so it is questionable whether this was "unauthorized access". This (the login step, consdered in isolation) s analogous to someone assisting a, for example, visually or physically disabled person to log in to theiir online account.

3. Would disappear if 1. and 2. are not found to be not criminal for reasons similar to the above.

On the part of senior parts of the US government administration.

US Gov Logic: Korea = Asian, China = Asian. Therefore Korea company linked to China.

This is the same type of Republican US Government "logic" used to bomb and invade Iraq in 2003:
Saudi Arabian Terrorists attacked USA. Saudi Arabia = Arab, Iraq = Arab (and unpopular). Therefore, Bomb Iraq!

If you think there is classified intel providing more rationale than this, you are almost certainly deluded.

I'm going to miss Anthropic when the orange Lord Harkonnen tantrum toddler king wipes out the premium US AI company because they said no to him.

Admit that it's already too complex for us to understand how it arrived at a particular response or behavior. Just like a person is, qualitatively.

We seem to get by not really understanding how or why other humans behave or respond, in particular cases. We get by by understanding generalities about behaviour, and by creating societal norms, laws, and social contracts.

Maybe we need the same for AIs. But who should the laws and social contracts apply to? Saying it should apply to AI developers is like saying parents should be blamed for the misdeeds of their offspring. That consequentialist morality and justice used to be the case, but not in the most advanced societies today.

A bit of a quandary.

Not "In fact" but rather "Additionally", because those two observations about randomness are independent of each other.

There is a clear difference between
1. very occasionally "a pattern appears" randomly in the random data sequence (and yet it is apparently still perfectly random) ...
and
2. a perfectly random sequence can nonetheless be an encoding (representation) of something else that is non-random.

I must admit it is hard to think clearly about the semantics of "randomness".

For example, does an infinite-length random sequence necessarily contain non-random subsequences, in fact, ALL non-random subsequences?
This is the Boltzmann brain issue generalized to non-physical random sequences.

I guess, when we "check" a sequence for randomness, we have to ASSUME we are not so terribly unlucky as to be checking during the infinitesimally rare time period of the sequence generation in which it's generating regularity purely by accident. How many times its it sufficient to sample different parts of the sequence to be sure it is not "usually somewhat regular". What if we are extra unlucky and are in the middle of a very long accidental regularity in the sequence?

So can we ever be sure something is random just by looking at the random data sequence?
Or must we instead analyze its generation process and say nothing could predict that process exactly, so we may as well say its output data is random.

a "true" random number generator will still generate a stream of data which has an analyzable pattern in it, purely by chance. (Infinite Monkeys problem).

If your is-it-random-or-not evaluator happened on one of those randomly coherent strings, would it say "hey this isn't random!" ?

If fact, perfectly random data is the most efficient (most compressed) representation of any information. (Smallest Kolmogorov Complexity representation).

It seems there are a lot of paradoxes with the concept of randomness.

I don't foresee that there will be any Uber and Lyft drivers by 2030, except a small and diminishing subset to serve the niche of people who won't get in a self-driving taxi.

are required to re-invest all of their profits in their operation, and not distribute them among owners and shareholders.

The people behind ChatGTP are essentially designing a neural net training system and general purpose inference and expression system based on the neural net. Then they are feeding in pretty much all of the human expressions of knowledge or communication in the public or cheaply commercially purchasable (e.g. used books) domain, as learning material for the neural net.

Essentially, they are creating a very large library with a very fast, efficient, disinterested librarian function to help a person find what they're looking for. I'm sure a lot of crimes have been planned in the past with the assistance of library visits. Do we start rounding up librarians? Or, in a more apt analogy, do we start rounding up the university professors of library science, who trained all those librarians?

are way, way better (and more cost effective) than anything you're driving. 60mph in 4 seconds and drives itself. You should try one before commenting. By the way, enjoying those gas prices?

you're welcome.

Because when enough people start using a technical term incorrectly, that mistake becomes the "official, most correct" usage of the term in the natural language.

Examples:

CPU - you know, the big beige computer box under your desk, as opposed to the "monitor". Luckily somehow English has escaped from that misuse that was common in the 1990s and 2000s.

"I could care less" - This now means "I couldn't care less" which actually made literal sense.

"Meme" - you know, those silly viral images or animations passed around on socials or the Interweb: Example "Grumpy Cat"
                                As opposed to its intended scientific meaning as "a unit of information with the property that it can induce its hosts to replicate it and thus carry it forward in time." Examples: the holy books of a religion.

And now we have "AGI" which if we're not careful will come to mean "Agentic AI" or even, an ARM chip used for AI, as opposed to "Artificial General Intelligence".

 

Stop all the alternatives to fossil fuels and then start a war carefully calculated (lol) to raise oil and gas prices through the roof. I guess we know which industry his shell companies, relatives, and cronies are all invested in.

Seriously though, can we just exile Trump and his fossil fuel CEO buddies to a large iceberg that just broke off a formerly stable ice shelf somewhere. Poetic justice. They'll be fine, because global heating is fake news.