You realize it's just predicting tokens, right? It doesn't "feel" anything.
This is what happens when you train a machine on Reddit posts.
To be fair, I think most people are just token predictors.
Don't forget Paxton gave a lenient sentence to Adam Hoffman who raped a friend's kid for over three years.
You could have stopped at Microsoft Breaks. We just found a previous update from Microsoft breaks the cellular connection in some of our HP laptops. The update flips the IMEI back to the default. We had to get a patch from HP to fix the update.
Reading both sides, as well as OpenAI's announcement, it looks like, perhaps unexpectedly, OpenAI is morally right here IMHO. They heard rumours so they put their new model at work on all problems, then focused on two, one is different than those two researchers and the other is a different solution. I think the NYU researcher started too suspicious/paranoid which started the hostility, and the other side, which seemed to have been very accommodating at first lost patience. The Anthropic researcher did not even want to talk to them, I don't see how them saying that it would have been easier if he was not working at Anthropic, like he was proving it himself. In any case this is all silly academic bickering to me. Almost as silly as OpenAI's take that this is the start of AGI somehow...
PS. I have no horse in the race, I use various AI tools to help my work, Claude usually performs better than ChatGPT at the things I do, but I don't root for any company.
How is OpenAI morally right?!?
Best case for OpenAI is that they heard rumours that a researcher was closing in on a NS breakthrough using a specific method, so they instantly set a team on the problem giving them with a massive amount of resources. Their internal team then specifically guided the model to use the same very specific direction the researchers was using, something they (nor the model) would ever have known to do without the rumours. A detail that OpenAI conveniently left out of the narrative.
And that's the best case scenario. The worst case is that because the researcher was using ChatGPT to work on drafts of the paper and those drafts ended up in the training data for the model. So rather than discovering anything the agents just implemented / finished off the work they already had access to.
It's insanely sketchy. The NYU researcher is honestly being extraordinarily calm about the whole thing, typically in a situation like this people would be getting close to a fist fight.
Ah yes, the censorship that still allowed people to see the lies about ivermectin. Clearly an abuse of power to let people see the lies. And no, the technologies in this story were not used by Biden. So another lie which isn't being censored.
Mandatory vaccinations were for a select group of people: i.e. the military and medical workers. No one else was required to get a vaccination.
But please, continue licking RFK, Jr's boots. He needs all the help he can get.
It's hilarious, the moment I saw the headline of the article I knew the US would object.
And the moment I read "By 164 votes to one" I realized that the US had attained the dubious honour of being even more of an international gong show than North Korea.
The behavior of the AI agents reflect the ethics of the companies making the models. If you aren't afraid to train your models on data regardless of copyright or public access, why would you expect agents by these companies to take over web pages etc?
That's not how it works. Just consider how hard SpaceX has tried (and largely failed) to make Grok as reactionary as Elon Musk.
The trouble is that these LLMs act as if they're intelligent people, and it's really hard to convince intelligent people to stay inside a sandbox.
Private industry doing it better than the government.
Optimization hinders evolution.
