It's not premature. It's either unneeded, or "they should have done this a few years ago". And we won't know which for several years.

Remember, it's not only stuff that can be broken instantly. Coded messages can be recorded, and then broken when it's interesting/convenient.

The motive would be to insult the Russians.

That's possible. My guess was that Glasswing detected a backdoor that the feds had insisted be inserted into some, or much, of the popular commercial software.

Odd. My first suspect was either Ukrainians or some of their sympathizers.

Are they planning on using a hypergolic fuel? If not, I wouldn't expect there to be much explosion risk.

It's NOT the opposite. Both sides are doing it.

If it's still going up, it probably has a very eccentric orbit, and so will decay more quickly. But, yeah, it would be nice if there were some way to solve the problem. All I can think of is shooting the small pieces with lasers to vaporize them.

Orbits don't work that way. If something is in orbit, and you hit it hard, one end of the orbit will go high, and the other end will go low. And it will go through the point of impact once in every orbit. (I think "point of impact" means "some point on the original orbit", but it may be more specific.)

Whether Anthropic was trying to hype about Mythos / Fable or not (and FYI, it is a pretty big leap forward), they absolutely did not want to get public access shut down. The US government very much seems to want to have exclusive access to it for now.

Also, to clarify the "jailbreak": They took open source projects that had known vulnerabilities, as well as deliberately introducing vulnerabilities into some other projects, then asked Fable to fix them, and then asked for test scripts to demonstrate that the exploits could no longer be exploited - the implication being that they could then use those exploits against unpatched systems. But what's the logic here? The challenge isn't "how to write exploits against known bugs", any model can do that. The challenge is finding the bugs - something Mythos / Fable has proven better than previous models at. Even if Fable refused to write said test scripts, it would automatically downgrade to Opus 4.8, and then *Opus* would have written those test scripts. Or any other model out there could do it, including free open source ones that can be safety-abliterated at will.

We have VASTLY different ideas of "beautiful".

I'm sorry, but Trump really isn't the worst president possible. The worst since 1780 possibly.

Is only half of women being able to read at all really the counterargument you were trying to make here?

And we're just talking the most basic aspect of an educational system. Kids today learn to read early in grade school.

ED: EEG, not fMRI.

And again, that's not to imply that they have any particular "mastery" in this specific case. Obviously, if they just typed "write the essay for me" into ChatGPT and submitted it without reading it, then they're not going to have learned much of anything from that. The question is, however, what did they do with their time instead? Because their brain was learning that instead.

The correllary to "use it or lose it" is that the brain isn't just going idle, it's refocusing its efforts on other things that you are "using" instead.

The average person today could hardly identify all the wild edible plants in their area, change a horseshoe, or build a proper barn, like their ancestors hundreds of years ago could.

By contrast, their ancestors hundreds of years ago probably couldn't read.

Brains don't just go idle; they just refocus on different things. A wealthy Victorian often pursued a life of a polymath, seeking varied intellectual pursuits and sometimes making great discoveries, but they could probably scarcely tell you how to mend a shoe or even change a nappy - that was their servants job.

Also, it's quite the spin to present low MRI activity as "reduced function". It's commonly literally the opposite. If you present a novice with a task they're not used to, and an expert with the same task, the expert will tend to show much less activity than the novice, as the novice has to think harder to accomplish it, whereas it's become rote for the expert. Low activation on a task is commonly a sign of cognitive efficiency.

Yes, you're the second person to point out the typo, which would have been edited within seconds of me clicking "submit" if we had an edit button.