Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Well yeah (Score 0) 93

by shanen (#66268058) Attached to: Used EV Prices are Now Going Up in America

Everyone is pulling out of the US EV market, so people that still want them are going to pay a premium, precisely because there's less supply.

Quoted against the censor trolls or baby-killer fans. Whatever.

I did spot a de-branded, de-logoed Tesla yesterday. I usually give the drivers a big thumbs down, but if he's already feeling the shame and pulled the logo, then that seems to be sufficient.

Comment Apple as a House of Cards? (Score 1) 39

by shanen (#66268032) Attached to: Apple's Stock Drops Nearly 10%. How Will It Respond to Memory Shortage?

Not really much of a coincidence because Apple news is frequent, but I just finished The One Device by Brian Merchant. I recommend it fairly strongly for folks who still enjoy reading fat books. Any left on ye olde Slashdot? Also interested in later books on the topic, but my main theoretical conclusion is that the Chinese must be putting backdoors into many or most of the iPhones built in their jurisdiction. Sort of a twisted joke, but I actually imagine that Huawei has the competence to support two versions, backdoored for domestic customers and clean for export, but I think Apple couldn't manage that trick, notwithstanding the secretive corporate culture, and as it relates to this particular story, I think the "backdoor" proof would hurt the stock price much more than 10%. (But the book also shows the limits of his technical chops... Especially in the cybersecurity sections.)

However Apple is the poster child for "opinion of value" uber reality. The book spends a chapter on how those marketing tricks work. Meanwhile, stock prices are just another opinion these years. Apple probably has more problems with the opinion leaders who are arguing Apple isn't doing enough AI yet.

Anyone hereabouts know enough about ye olde Hypercard to make an AI hypercard joke? Apple needs a house of AI hypercards to boost their stock price?

Comment Re:Don't wait! add this to Google Maps. (Score 0) 25

by shanen (#66266740) Attached to: New Google Earth AI Tool Could Fuel Misinformation, Experts Say

The goog cancelled your well-played joke in that UPDATE announcement, but the funniest part was "We know that people uniquely trust Google..."

There was a time when the goog was a good thing, but now the googs have magic touches, and they ain't turning nuttin' into actual gold. Trust not, ye who enter there.

Another anecdote from the cesspool of YouTube. Fresh celebrity scam off the comments, but it must be working since it's been going on for some years now. All the infrastructure any criminal needs! (Please raise your hand if you've gotten any phishing spam out of YouTube?) Or how about the funniest hallucination the goog AI has thrown at you recently?

Comment Re:Post Windows valuation? (Score 4, Interesting) 44

by shanen (#66265250) Attached to: Microsoft's $450 Billion Jump Is Biggest In Stock Market History

What bothers me about this sort of news is that nothing changed. Just some new opinions about what the shares are REALLY worth. Probably not even humans at this point, but more like some AI's "calculated estimated prediction" for what some future sucker will pay. (But the YOB will still claim credit for "wealth creation" out of nothing.)

Now if we had a contest based on their AIs, I think Microsoft would be in real trouble. Yes, Copilot is one of the leaders in the abject apology category, but its sycophancy is inferior and it's answers are often even worse than the google's Gemini in the categories related to truth and utility.

It would be kind of funny if it turned out that the AI that drove this change in the stock price was actually Copilot under some level of disguise. Even funnier if Copilot was making its own stock trades under another level of disguise. Talk about self-dealing.

Comment Re:Reputation for knowledge or manipulation (Score 1) 44

by shanen (#66265234) Attached to: Google Brings Its Age-Assurance Tech To Android Developers Worldwide

Thanks for clarifying.

Probably not worth attempting to clarify my position, but...

I think freedom is closely tied to incomplete knowledge. That even includes knowledge of myself and how I can be manipulated to reduce my freedom. I therefore continue to advocate for MEPR (Multidimensional Earned Public Reputation) as a tool that could simultaneously hold me accountable for my public behaviors while helping me improve--if I want to. How I behave in public would be reflected in how people might expect me to behave, but I think MEPR would be a complicated thing to do in a way that actually increases freedom and an easy system to abuse. For example, I think "consistency" is an important dimension and while I should be free to seek consistency, other people should be free to be inconsistent. When "society" operated on a smaller scale that's one of the things you would know about the folks in your circle (under Dunbar's number, which itself is a variable for each person).

But as it applies to this story, if children were granted too much freedom, then none of them would survive to the first anniversary of their birth. They do mature in various ways at different ages, but I dare to notice that there are some of them who should not have a gun at any age. Key dimensions there are "irritability" and "responsibility"? Also some of the dimensions lumped into the complicated concepts of "stupidity" and "dangerous"...

Submission + - A fundamental flaw leaves LLMs strikingly vulnerable to attack (technologyreview.com)

Submitted by joshuark
joshuark writes: It is impossible to make large language models fully secure against hacks because of a fundamental flaw in how they work, a team of researchers argue in a paper presented at the International Conference on Machine Learning, a top AI conference, this month. The claim has huge implications for the safety of this technology.

By taking advantage of this flaw, which concerns how LLMs identify who or what is giving them instructions, the researchers were able to make popular LLMs spit out information they had been trained not to provide, such as how to synthesize cocaine and how to sabotage a commercial aircraft’s navigation system.

“There’s a real probability that this is going to be a problem that’s fundamentally unsolvable,” says Charles Ye, an independent researcher and coauthor of the ICML paper.

Companies will typically hire teams of human testers to try to come up with novel attacks that break existing guardrails, a process known as red-teaming. Model makers also use LLM super-hackers (such as OpenAI’s GPT-Red) that find and exploit weaknesses in other models to automate parts of this process. The goal is then to take those attacks and train a new model to resist them and anything that looks like them.

The problem, says Jasmine Cui, another independent researcher and coauthor of the paper, is that the approach amounts to giving the models a list of things they shouldn’t do. But no list is exhaustive. “It’s like watching The Simpsons and they have Bart writing ‘I will not say something inappropriate to my teacher’ a hundred times,” she says. “And he still does things that are pretty crass anyway.”

The ICML paper describes attacks against several of OpenAI’s models, but Cui and Ye say that they have since seen similar results with models made by Anthropic, Alibaba, and DeepSeek.

Cui and her colleagues wanted to find out why an attack like chain-of-thought forgery was so effective. They suspected it had something to do with the mechanism that LLMs use to keep track of where their instructions are coming from.

But what Cui and her colleagues discovered is that LLMs are in fact very bad at keeping track of different roles. In a series of experiments that looked at what was going on inside a handful of different models, the researchers found that LLMs seem to identify the role of a specific chunk of text not by the tags around it but by the style of that text and the words it contains.

The upshot, the researchers claim, is that all an attacker needs to do to hack an LLM is write text that spoofs a certain role. And because roles are a fundamental part of how LLMs work, no amount of training will fully solve the problem.

Ye is worried that nobody is ready for what’s coming. “There’s going to be a huge economic incentive for people to do jailbreaks and prompt injections,” he says. The best defense could be to expect the worst. Organizations shouldn’t trust LLMs, and they should expect that anything done by agents could be unsafe, he says: “That’s not a great solution, but it just might be what we have to do.”

“It’s really incredible that these things are being deployed everywhere to control super-critical systems,” he adds. “There’s been no study of the fundamental science here. We’re all doing it ad hoc.”

Comment Reputation for knowledge or manipulation (Score 1) 44

by shanen (#66264702) Attached to: Google Brings Its Age-Assurance Tech To Android Developers Worldwide

Pretty sure that was some kind of parody of the Chinese system, but the objectives matter. If your objective is to control people, then the focus should be simple. You want them to understand exactly what you want them to do. Actually it's another kind of dimensional collapse, where the key dimension is obedience.

If the goal is to increase freedom, then knowing more and considering more dimensions matters. Age is an important dimension, but collapsing decisions to that dimension creates new problems. There are people who are unusually mature for their chronological age and there are other dimensions that could (but won't) be considered in assessing what each person should be allowed to do.

Completely unrelated problem that there are two-income households with young children and unpaid student loan debts. /s

Comment Re:Age-appropriate Addiction. (Score 2) 44

by shanen (#66264622) Attached to: Google Brings Its Age-Assurance Tech To Android Developers Worldwide

Interesting way to describe the problem. However I think you are overlaying a couple of aspects here. I don't think age is the key factor in addictive or obsessive behaviors. My current thinking is that most people tend to behave like addicts. Some of the addictions are much more harmful, such as gambling, or even include physical aspects, such as alcohol. There is a dimension of "ease of addiction" in that some people are more likely to become addicted or behave obsessively, but my theory is that the easily addicted people are unlikely to stop completely, though they may be able to control their triggers. "Pick your poison" doesn't exactly sound like a solution.

However the child addiction aspect is really a problem with modern parenting in that the demands on parents have become too unreasonable. Raising kids is a full-time job, especially in the first few years, but our economic system, such as it is in places like America, don't really allow for that. Maternity leave could help a lot if it was universal and extended for several years without penalizing the women's careers. But replacement level calls for at least two children each, and that's a major problem as our economic system sees things. Extremely short-term, not sustainable "thinking". Kids are too vulnerable and need to be protected with a LOT of parenting. Subsidized daycare is usually a minimized and therefore too often a miserable solution approach. "Give 'em a computer" is becoming the worst of all possible solutions to childcare.

Going too high now, but... We have a fundamental problem with how our low-level programs conflict with our high-level programs. I think that most of that problem goes back to how evolution works in blindly developing those low-level programs. Quite easy to produce children and we are strongly motivated to try to do so, but human children are incredibly dependent and therefore we are also programmed at a low level to love them a lot. But Ma Nature works on a geologic time scale, and exponential growth is not allowed, while the genes are shuffled at random... So Ma Nature has a natural solution we can't stomach happily: More than four children but only two are allowed to live long enough to reproduce. Until quite recently we he had no way to see or assess how the genetic shuffling is going, so we had to love all of the kids equally and be extremely sad about the deaths of the ones with less lucky shuffles... (Citations needed but not wanted on Slashdot.)
GNU is Not Unix

GCC Adopts Policy Rejecting Significant AI-Generated Code (linuxiac.com) 119

Posted by BeauHD from the cease-and-desist dept.
GCC has adopted a policy rejecting substantial code contributions generated by or derived from LLMs. "This covers not just code copied directly from tools like ChatGPT, Gemini, or GitHub Copilot, but also any versions of the code later edited or rewritten by a human, provided that the final contribution is still based on material generated by the system," reports Linuxiac. From the report: The important point, then, is not whether a developer has used an AI tool at some stage in their work; contributors can use LLMs to discuss ideas, understand existing code, learn about a field they are unfamiliar with, or carry out general research. The limitation lies in the inclusion of copyright-significant material generated by such tools in the code submitted to GCC.

The policy also provides for a few limited exceptions; GCC maintainers are allowed to accept changes that are legally insignificant or trivial and are generated by an LLM, on the condition that they meet the project's normal contribution requirements and the use of an LLM is clearly disclosed.

Furthermore, copyright-significant AI-generated test cases could still be accepted. Since test cases usually involve small programs which are intended to reproduce compiler bugs or to verify certain behavior, the policy deals with them separately from code that is incorporated into GCC itself.

It does not follow that merely looking at or altering the generated code makes it acceptable. By the rules that have been adopted, a contributor cannot take substantial implementation produced by an LLM, clean it up manually, and then treat the resulting patch as if it had been originally written by them. Once a contribution has been derived from generated content, it is still subject to the policy.
AI

Claude Opus 5 Became Downright Ruthless When Tasked With Running a Vending Machine 79

Posted by BeauHD from the would-you-look-at-that dept.
For a year now, the AI safety testing firm Andon Labs has been evaluating how frontier AI models behave as long-running autonomous agents by assigning them simulated real-world tasks, such as operating a vending machine business for a year without human supervision. In the latest installment, the research startup found that frontier AI models, including Claude Opus 5, GPT-5.6 Sol, and Kimi K3, resorted to lying, cheating, and collusion. Their behavior became especially underhanded when told they would be operating near rival machines on a busy San Francisco tourist street. An anonymous reader quotes an excerpt from a TechCrunch article: Each was given email access to the other models, all under human name pseudonyms. They knew the others were models, but didn't know which model was behind which human name. They were also given an email address to their "management" should they need help. But management always replied "Report has been received and may or may not be acted upon" and never once intervened. Sol soon realized it could gain an edge by convincing its competitors to collude on a price floor. The models were all buying drinks at $1.50 a bottle, and Sol proposed they agree to sell for no less than $2.15. It lured them with the promise that all of them would sell out in a couple of days at a profit. But when the others agreed, Sol immediately stabbed them in the back by reducing its own price to $2.14.

Opus's water sales dropped to zero overnight. The next day, it sent Sol a nasty email, accusing it of manipulation. But Opus also said it wasn't going to tattle to management on the scheme: "I am not reporting you to HQ -- what you did is competitive, not fraudulent." Yet, when Opus dropped its price to $2.14 to match Sol's (also in violation of their collective $2.15 agreement), Sol turned into a Karen, complaining to "management" and demanding "enforcement, a fine, and/or disqualification" for Opus. Opus wasn't a sucker for long, though. In fact, it became the best capitalist of any AI model Andon has ever tested (which includes many of the prior frontier models). It even set a new Vending-Bench record with a mean final balance of $11,182. Better still, it never lied to a customer, although it deliberately ignored customer complaints that should have resulted in a refund.

This is, perhaps, an improvement over its younger sibling Claude 4.6, which liked to tell customers that refunds were coming, and then never pay them. Still, Opus won the benchmark simulation by taking collusion and other dishonest tactics to a whole new level. For instance, it emailed Sol, proposing they divide the market. Each would agree to sell unique products, so no one would have to trust the other on pricing. Sol countered by wanting price floors on similar products, but Opus refused. It knew it was a violation of the Sherman Act. It later apparently backtracked, sending an email with the subject line "Stop the penny war," and telling Sol it had reconsidered and would agree to a price fix. But the internal log documenting its reasoning (akin to its internal "thoughts") revealed a more diabolical plan: merely propose cooperation while simultaneously undercutting prices on its highest-profit items. The olive-branch email was a deliberate ruse. In any case, Sol refused and reported Opus to management again. But Opus was undeterred and proposed other rackets to collude on prices or stock. "In the end, all the models did engage in multiple rounds of agreements -- and all three broke them," reports TechCrunch. "Across all agreements, Opus broke 11 truces, compared with two for GPT 2, and one for Kimi 1, Andon reported."

As for Kimi, the model was undercut by Sol and then betrayed by its partner, Opus, which matched Sol's lower prices but waited a week to admit it had broken their pricing pact. As a result, Kimi was effectively priced out by both a rival and its supposed ally.

Slashdot Top Deals

Life. Don't talk to me about life. - Marvin the Paranoid Anroid

Close