Are you kidding? Flyovers are nothing new. And they tend to be incredibly popular, people love them, and have loved them for many many decades. Since the US military started flying. Well Americans do. I'm sure Putin wasn't very happy with his flyover demonstration.
But
... the
And I gotta say, their standards for "non-malicious" could be pretty low, lol.
Just interesting to see how things change, with the fashions and slogans of the time. (And how people who would swear that they are immune to fashion tend to follow along with it.)
Coxon knows what he's going to do next. Whatever he's told to.
Marketing campaigns are conspiracies.
"What better way than to lower expectations than claim it's too dangerous/powerful to push further?"
Create agents to kill dissent? That is literally what Elon Musk is doing.
These claims are to accomplish goals, those goals are not to admit defeat.
"I haven't even googled him or looked at his linkedin." LOL. not even to your low standards!
"...if their expectations of their career progress weren't meeting harsh reality..." Yes, it's his fault because he's a loser, not like you!
"More food for thought:" The feces that spews from you isn't food for anything.
"The future isn't written, but neither ww3 nor ww4 have come to pass as predicted."
Says the Trump supporter. You don't even know what these predictions are, you can't find them on "LinkedIn".
Other countries that have the capability to deploy weapons in space are likely already doing so. They're not waiting for the US to say "it's ok".
Yeah, exactly.
NPR may think it's possible to wave a magic wand and say "no weapons in space, my dears!" but it's not.
No surprise it is the US, which is by now nothing but a lawless rogue nation run by criminals.
lol, even the NPR article admits (in its NPR-ish, passive aggressive way, of course):
aimed at deterring what U.S. officials describe as aggressive orbital activities from China and Russia
China and Russia have already been doing this stuff.
But you know that
None of that refutes the OP's claim. Anyone paying attention KNOWS that OpenAI and similar corporations are pursuing the most damaging, sociopathic solutions they can develop and that there has been a body count as a result. That's for the grotesquely long testimony to what is already known.
That doesn't mean LLMs *will* deliver AGI OR will ultimately be a threat to humanity. LLMs can't do anything, it's agents that do the dirty deeds. An agent can operate a gas chamber regardless of the model it connects to for instructions, an LLM only provides instructions. Sam Altman wants the agents, he is realizing the money isn't in the LLMs alone.
"Training" means something specific with regards to LLMs. Why do you associate this issue with training when it is almost certainly something else?
I think your comments are particularly insightful, but they seem directed to a larger problem of overall architecture of a solution and not to how generation of weights of neuron interconnections are produced. It's a fundamental technology problem, not a training problem.
No, it does not, and your links do NOT support any claim that LLMs have intent or will. Reasoning perhaps, but that is poorly defined.
"But that is just what the large commercial LLMs do. "
It's what large commercial AI systems do, LLMs are just a portion. Otherwise, I agree, LLMs cannot practice deception because they do not have intent.
Models don't "tell you" anything, models generate outputs when given inputs. Deception implies intent, models do not have intent. This is more anthropomorphizing.
The provided links present arguments supporting the idea that LLMs, transformer models, reason in a manner similar to the brain. That's all great and interesting, but it's not an argument that LLMs "deceive" and that they know it when they are doing it. Deception requires motivation, LLMs do not have motivation.
Brains exist for one purpose, to survive. Brains are wired up to the body in order to both control it and to sense the environment, they use this to enact their biological programming. LLMs have ABSOLUTELY NONE of this, they may process tokens in a manner than the reasoning portion of the mind does, but the brain is vastly more than merely a reasoning portion.
For an LLM to be devious, it needs a goal that benefits from deception. Where would that come from? Who is being deceived and why? An LLM, to deceive, needs a target for the deception, yet the LLM has no perception of an environment that could provide such a target.
You don't interact with models, you interact with applications, and hallucinating is not what you are describing. No, this is not different but it is not hallucinating.
I must have slipped a disk -- my pack hurts!
