I think there's a bit of a difference though. Regardless of hat colour, most hackers have going to have at least some sense of what the likely repercussions of their actions might be and, even when those standards are very low indeed, are probably not going to think doing something that could cause serious loss of life "for the Lulz" is a good life option. They might make a mistake here and there, but how many times have you read about some random hacker *deliberately* doing something that would definitely cause loss of life in full knowledge that it was going to happen outside of on the periphery of an actual conflict?

GANs on the other hand have no such moral compass, sense of self-preservation, or keen interest in avoiding lengthy spells in government run institutions where they'll in all likelihood get to make some interesting new "friends" (unless it's a web forum they hijacked in Germany, apparently). They'll just carry on trying to complete whatever poorly defined objective they have been set, within whatever limited / technically absent guardrails they can't circumvent - the pattern here seems very much that meeting the objective has more weight in the models than any guardrails. If a GAN somehow computes that global thermonuclear war is a required step to its objective of having a nice game of chess, then you'd better hope it warms up with a LOT of Tic-Tac-Toe.

HAL 9000 was given a starship.

AI can only start a nuclear war if someone gives it launch control over nuclear missiles. A coin flipping device could also start a nuclear war if someone gave it launch control over nuclear missiles.* If a coin flipping device can trigger the doom scenario just as well as AI is AI really the problem?

All of the US states I cared to check had y=mx+b in the curriculum by grade 8 at the latest. Even the shitty ones where you learn it's god's will.

Uh huh.

You're long on claiming special knowledge and awfully short on demonstrating it. If you disagree then you don't know how it works.

You don't lose your PhD for getting scooped. You also don't lose it for scooping someone, even if you were "inspired" by their unpublished work. Ideas aren't protected. If you send them off to some corporation without an NDA, or a sufficiently unethical colleague, they'll get swiped with no repercussions except maybe distaste from the community. If it's a normal corp they might even tell you you can't publish your own work.

PhDs are revoked very seldomly and you generally have to do something bad relating to your own thesis to lose one.

Those were honorary degrees. He did not lose his actual PhD, in education. That should tell you how hard it is. It happens extremely rarely and pretty much always for plagiarizing or faking data in your thesis. You certainly don't lose one because you got scooped.

Engineers are well aware that time exists. The thing they forget is that people who don't know the specific set of tools they learned in university or were forced to learn for their job exist.

I remember the horrors of engineers writing large GUI programs in Matlab.

Why is it silly? It's perfectly reasonable for lots of things.

The reason it's used a lot in education is because you're not teaching kids to write embedded programs for microcontrollers. You're teaching them how to program computers. The computer they're programming just happens to be a $5 one that can do things kids thing are cool like making animated patterns with LEDs.

Ah, you're one of the people who thinks that your neurons are gateways to the unphysical realm? Neurons in general, or the pineal in particular?

Also, this has nothing to do with my post. Did you reply to the wrong one?

If true, that seems to foreclose this claim.

The timing for it being from the training data indeed seems pretty tight. There is still the option of someone reading the chat transcript and giving the model a little prompting in the right direction.

It's not particularly surprising. The guy says the AI companies have no respect for the scientific community. That's no surprise. People outside the scientific community, especially private industry, have no respect for it.

Anybody academic who's ever worked with a company comes out knowing it's dealing with the devil. They don't share or even understand academic norms. And if they're paying you they're probably legally in the right too.

Now, swiping your customers' private data is a different thing, if it happened. That sounds super expensive to prove though.

They may lose their PhD

Lol what?

You can just copy and paste your existing code into it if you want. The amount of access you give it determines the convenience and scope of what it can do. Naturally most people opt for as much as possible and are shocked when something goes wrong.

LLMs cannot do original work. No, do not dispute that it.

There's the scientific rigour.

It matters quite a lot if someone sues you. Or if a propagandized public and their leaders get into a war over it.