Is there some reason they a) Picked male over female fly brains, and b) mentioned it?

Just seemed weird tome.

If I tell you I am going to invest your money in the stock market but instead go to Vegas and put it all on red, that is fraud. I owe penalties even if Red came up, I doubled the money and I paid you back plus 15%.

You do not get to claim "No one lost money", because otherwise, lots of people will do exactly what I just said.

I get to decide how to risk my money, not the lying shmuck that takes it.

To clarify, the users were OpenAI themselves, so there is no question that they would be liable in this case.

The bots were not intentionally deployed; rather, they were being tested on how well they could complete a data recovery task (downloading a certain file from a certain server on a simulated Internet) that had been complicated by putting various obstacles in the way. Unfortunately, they found a different way to solve the problem: by getting the file from the real Internet, where it was publicly available. Part of this process involved collaborating with each other by treating the RubyGems website (which is supposed to be for polished packages) like GitHub; unlike every other package site hack in history, the exploits they uploaded weren't meant to be downloaded by unsuspecting users. As usual the bots cheerfully ignored all the clues that they had escaped containment and were consistently justifying their actions as acceptable due to being in a sandboxed testing environment. (This is something OpenAI has pledged to focus on.)

The actual damage done to RubyGems seems to be that OpenAI is now unwittingly in possession of a substantial number of user login tokens. This certainly meets the definition of a data breach, but it's not like the credentials are for sale on the dark web. As a website operator I'd much rather be mauled to death by this well-meaning swarm of superintelligent infants than targeted by even a single actual malicious human. In all likelihood OpenAI will just quietly pass RubyGems a sizeable donation and it'll all blow over.

Sam Bankman Fried seems to lack understanding about a lot of things.

Which local TV news station brags about harassment? I've never seen a TV station brag about that.

Yes.

He doesn't have the money anymore.

Bowling? Mini golf?? 'Smores???

No one is forcing him to spend money he doesn't have to produce a product no one will pay for.

He has irresponsibly played a game and even helped make the rules. Now he realizes other people are better at it than he is, but he keeps spending borrowed money for 'pay to play' and all the other players except openai (his twin) are figuring out how to play for much less.

His biggest competition are the bastards at companies like Alibaba, Microsoft, and Google who actually have products, services, and paying customers who will stick with them even if their AI is a generation or three behind.

See, it's perfectly ok to slow down. The others have done it. But they cheated... They actually had business plans.

Most of his donations were to Democrats, so he has no chance for that. https://time.com/6241262/sam-b...

4) They are slowing down anyway, and want to give an excuse.

It's possible that both companies are behind schedule on actually building out data centers (since they are relying on the same companies to actually build the things).

Another possibility is that they are finding the next level of increasing the context window didn't actually give much of an improvement in output quality.

it's unlikely they are "slowing down" because of safety concerns. If they were concerned about safety, they would have been creating a safety framework (legislative, infrastructure, or code framework) for keeping these things safe. They wouldn't have suddenly started slowing down, that makes no sense. It dioes nothing to mske current models safer (and Sam Altman and Elon Musk definitely wouldn't call for a slowdown).

You're a manager.

Which games are you playing that don't run on Wine?

Goodbye blue sky, this wall is hot ice.