4bpp

> Who the fuck knows what can happen with the current US admin

The ratchet of authoritarianism has been turning steadily in the US (and the rest of the world) for at least the past 25 years, and a big part of why no coherent opposition to it managed to manifest is how it was turned into a partisan issue. Republicans and the apathetic centre tune out Democratic complaints about the authoritarianism of a Republican administration just as it happened when the party associations were reversed some 5 years ago, because a group resenting its outgroup wielding power is the most unsurprising dog-bites-man event.

At the same time, neither side is willing to criticise authoritarianism by their own, both because they do not want to "stab their soldiers in the back" in the culture war and because in practical terms more power to wield against the outgroup is too useful to forego. Would you still be happy to support a durable circumscription of the current US admin's ability to regulate local AI, if it also meant that no future Democratic administration could interfere with a cataclysmic AI-driven campaign of right-wing misinformation and propaganda that is threatening everything you hold dear?

I always got the sense that solutions for significant "unsolved problems in medicine" would be at least 10 years out from the point of total AI dominance in the theoretical sciences. Doing actual experiments is bottlenecked by real-life constraints (organisms are slow to grow and unpredictable, human laws won't let you build a factory to brute-force biology on a million test tube guinea pigs, let alone humans), and the theoretical side of biology is also relatively underdeveloped, to the point that "solve aging" seems as hard to formulate as Navier-Stokes would have been with 15th-century mathematics.

If you are serious about this preference, would you also be okay with a compromise solution where only you (and anyone else who feels the same) die, rather than taking everyone else with you?

You don't have to want to give the policeman status: once he pulls you over after running a red light at 2am and you realise he might let you off the hook if you are nice and deferential, the status gradient almost establishes itself. People knew this, and decided to become policemen for the status. So it was with tech wizards, once you encountered a problem you could not solve without their help.

I think gradual rollout is underrecognised as the utterly devious way of implementing user-hostile changes that it is. It doesn't take a lot of scrolling through the comments here to find instances of people who are unaffected by some change or another being inexplicably hostile towards posters who are, implicitly accusing them of anything from incompetence to drama-mongering and misinformation. In that way, some of those who would complain about a change are worn down early on, and by the time the change is rolled out to more people they have already resigned and moved on, preventing a critical mass of opposition from forming.

I never understood what are the technical obstacles to building the phone network in such a way that caller numbers can not be spoofed or suppressed. Then, you could just build a system where receiving an unsolicited phone call from a commercial entity entitles you to a compensation in small claims court, to the tune of 50 EUR, unless the caller can prove that you explicitly authorised them.

I can see humanity walking to its collective doom with a sense of satisfaction, like "at least/last it is happening to those other guys too".

I would imagine a lot of things touching upon progressive politics would be affected (there were a few high-profile incidents demonstrating bias like Google's black Wehrmacht soldier pictures, but has anyone rigorously tabulated how the various commercial LLMs respond to questions about the gender binary or heritability of human traits considered good or bad?). Overall, I'm too reluctant to even write out in the abstract sequences of words that I never want to explain to a future job interviewer or HR employee who used GPT-7 to comb the internet for all text that stylistically can be traced to me, but just imagine whatever you believe to be vile and wrongheaded opinions in that general space which it is certainly more than justifiable to prohibit. The things that make you think "banning this is good actually" are exactly the things most likely to be banned (and this is true in China too).

Another thing I would try if I had access to the models and enough proxies to hide behind is asking for advice on software/movie piracy or seeing to what extent the models can be elicited to straight up argue against the validity of intellectual property, though there it seems more probable to me that the US models would be permissive.

And some people might want to know about [insert your favourite beyond-the-pale-in-the-US topic here, we're on a US forum after all]. I think it would be great if those people could turn to Chinese models, while anyone wanting to know about Uyghur camps can ask the US ones.

It's still selective degradation of functionality, as presumably people who download a snowglobe animation program don't do it to see any sort of statement apart from normative depictions of wintery things. The problem would be the same if it showed Russian flags only to users with Ukrainian locale, or ads for Mountain Dew only when the user's locale is set to French, or even just something as impossible to interpret as offensive on its own as adding lots of little cactus men whenever the locale is Dutch.

The imputed discriminatory part is that the software only shows the additional flags to users with Russian locale, not that it shows the flags at all.

Define "come from". Could they have gotten those frontier capabilities, or any capabilities, without internet training data? It seems to me that without the private data, you might get a slightly less competitive model, but without the CommonCrawl-style data piles used in "pretraining", you get no model at all.

Even accepting the copying-as-theft framing, if I go to a village, steal some vegetables from everyone's gardens and ham from their sheds, and then add some prohibitively expensive spices I bought myself to make soup, do I get to claim it as mine and punish the villagers for trying to take it?

Maybe I'm slightly projecting my European sensitivities here, but I think there is more going on there than just the emptiness. There is a common theme that the spaces depicted are, on their own, quite unpleasant (barren, made from flimsy materials, probably emitting some amount of toxic fumes); it's just that this unpleasantness is normally masked by their human use and interpretation, which invariably some form of commercialism and hype. (Hence the abundance of hastily erected American mall architecture.)

A historical European town devoid of people does not work as a liminal space picture at all, because it still looks nice; and neither do the postapocalyptic settings that Japan is so fond of (YKK etc.). Eastern European commieblock and UK Brutalist hellscapes are actually quite similar in terms of the feeling they evoke, and have their own fandoms, but are considered their own genre - so I would conclude that "liminal space porn" is spaces only made tolerable by commercialism with the commercialism taken away, and the related "/r/UrbanHell" material is spaces only made tolerable by human habitation with that taken away or suppressed (e.g. if the humans are so bereft of vitality that they can no longer overcome the space's badness).

After reading your first paragraph, I was already drafting a slightly standoffish response in my head, to the effect that the children who grew up on our sanitised fairy tales seem to be blowing each other's heads off on the battlefields of 2026 with undiminished enthusiasm and sadism, and the only difference is that now more of them need a Xanax prescription afterwards. I appreciate that you actually addressed this view with less snark than I was able to.

The problem here is that there is more than two metaphorical people involved: there is the developer, the would-be user, and the evangelist who harangues the developer with "rewrite it in Rust brah" drive-by comments or blog posts about how nobody sane would use memory-unsafe languages/ecosystems without a vibrant community package management ecosystem in the year of our lord 2026.

The last person, I think, most clearly, does "owe" you supply-chain security, in the sense that he bears moral (and ought to be made to bear professional) responsibility for any adverse consequences you may suffer from its lack, though in practice he will probably often protest that he couldn't do anything about it because it's not like he is developer. Whether the developer also owes it is a more interesting question, and I think it greatly depends on what attitude he takes towards the evangelist (does he consider him a nuisance who makes implicit promises the developer is uninterested in delivering, or an ally who raises the dev's profile?).

Long ago, I remember seeing a cartoon which involved a tag-team of two people robbing a third, with A pointing a gun at C and saying "give your money to B", while B comments "I'm really just standing here, but I figure it's best if you do as he says". I'm not sure what exact piece of day-to-day politics this was made to comment on (though it was probably some or another flavour of political violence), but it seems somewhat applicable here as well. The lines just become "accept the supply chain, or suffer my public ridicule" and "I'm just providing the software 'as-is', but you probably should do as he says".

Taking a step back, I think "search for outliers" doesn't quite get to the heart of the issue. Why are we searching for the outliers, and why are we so particular about the base distributions that we are searching for outliers of - why are there women's sports at all (if the outliers they find are not outliers on the same metric in the whole population), and why is boxing, for example, divided into weight classes?

It seems to me that a big part of the point of competitive spectator sports is to send, to the spectator, a message along the lines of "this could have been you". It is hard to argue that the ability to throw a 1kg+ discus exceptionally far is otherwise so useful that would justify all the expense of finding and showcasing the outlier. Therefore, the point of the competition stands and falls with whether the spectator buys this message.

When do spectators tend to believe in it? When should they? Arguably, there is a plethora of reasons why the median American spectator looking at a clip of Usain Bolt running could not in any meaningful sense have been him. Yet, somehow, the "could-have-been-me sense" that people are endowed with transcends these reasons and results in men commonly looking at him and getting some of that could-have-been-me sense that gives the sport meaning, and women looking at him and getting much less of it. To solve this, we maintain a separate women's category. The winner there is not as much of an outlier relative to the distribution of the whole population. Most likely, she is still every bit as dissimilar to the spectators as Usain Bolt is. Yet, the women watching, and the ones merely learning about this event happening through osmosis, get their heart warmed by the dubious sense that this could have been them, and perhaps encouraged to try harder and hold more hope for some other pursuit of their own, in a way that they never would have due to Usain Bolt. Would they or would they not get the feeling for a transwoman sprinter? How would we even measure this?

The most obvious way would simply be excessive agreeableness. Users rate responses more highly if they affirm the user's thinking, but a general tendency to affirm would presumably result in the model being more inclined to affirm its own mistakes in a reasoning chain.

There was some research about it early on that was shared widely and shaped the folklore perception around it, such as the graph in https://static.wixstatic.com/media/be436c_84a7dceb0d834a37b3... from the GPT-4 whitepaper which shows that RLHF destroyed its calibration (ability to accurately estimate the likelihood that its guesses are correct). Of course the field may have moved on in the 2+ years that have passed since then.

Yeah, that's what I meant with "initialised as identity and the training process did not get to change them much".

That's interesting, could you point me to some source on these findings?

It seems to me that the difference between "iterative improvement" as you put it and "close to the identity" (as in the output is close to the input for most of the volume of the input space) as I put it is fairly subtle, anyway. One experiment I would like to see is what happens to the reasoning performance if rather than duplicating the selected layers, they are deleted/skipped entirely. If the layers improve reasoning by iterative improvement, this should make the performance worse; but if they contain a mechanism that degrades reasoning and is not robust against unannealed self-composition, it should make the performance similarly better.

Assuming the benchmarks are sound (rather than capturing a fluke), the provided explanation still does not pass the smell test. As far as I can tell, there is nothing about the training process of these models that would encourage them to make the output of any layer apart from (n-1) meaningful as the input of layer n, unless perhaps these layers were initialised as identity and the training process did not get to change them much. (Plausible for middle layers?)

Considering this, I think (again, assuming the benchmarks themselves are sound) the most plausible explanation for the observations is (1) the layers being duplicated are close to the identity function on most inputs; (2) something happened to the model in training (RLHF?) that forcefully degraded its reasoning performance; (3) the mechanism causing the degradation involves the duplicated layers, so their duplication has the effect of breaking the reasoning-degrading mechanism (e.g. by clobbering a "refusal" "circuit" that emerged in post-training).

More concisely, I'm positing that this is an approach that can only ever break things, and rather than boosting reasoning, it is selectively breaking things deleterious to reasoning.

"What have the Romans ever done for us?" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ)

If you are so allergic to using terms previously reserved for animal behaviour, you can instead unpack the definition and say that they produce outputs which make human and algorithmic observers conclude that they did not instantiate some undesirable pattern in other parts of their output, while actually instantiating those undesirable patterns. Does this seem any less problematic than deception to you?

Environmentalism has always been a "weight of our sins" sort of issue. Plastic straws are a rounding error relative to all the capricious uses of plastic and fossil fuels in our economy, but few things feel as frivolous as using once and then throwing away a piece of plastic for personal convenience while engaging in an already-kinda-sinful feeling activity like indulging in a soft drink, while simultaneously the paper straw that turns to cardboard mash in your mouth is perfectly calibrated to make you feel like you are doing real penance without encumbering anything economically important.

So plastic straw bans (instead of plastic slipper bans, plastic food packaging bans, taxes on plastic clothes fibres...) are what we get. And because the structure of the cause/problem is the same, the language of environmentalism naturally attaches itself and gives form to the vague sense of moral unease surrounding AI. Governments are surely already building tomorrow's tightly integrated thought police drone swarm complexes, but a crusade against those who simulate a zoo of programming weasels in our midst is much easier and morally no less fulfilling.

Unfortunately, all it will take is an appropriate choice of story about "Nazis"/"child predators"/"pirates"/"terrorists"/"Russian bots" sideloading unregulated apps or disabling the GPS trackers on their cars, and every prospective member of Doctorow's great new coalition (including most everyone in attendance when the talk was given) can be peeled away with ease.

Well, I don't see anything obvious to criticise about what your interlocutors posted; their statements seem plausible enough to me, and if there is actually a knockout argument against them, I don't know it, because the person who seemed to disagree (you) was busy making childish noises instead of making it!

> jet fuel/steel beams

This debate was carried out sufficiently publicly that I got the sense people actually ran experiments confirming the pro-beam softening/structural failure/whatever case; certainly the "truther" case should have been taken seriously before that, and with decorum always because there is no situation in which any debate in a moderatable forum benefits from playground behaviour.

Do you think that the people who made those remarks you cite considered them untrue themselves? If yes, you are suggesting bad faith (which should be grounds to extricate yourself from the discussion and/or call it out, not add fuel to the fire); if not, you are suggesting that factual disagreement is appropriately answered by childishness, which basically is saying that you think every discussion worth the name should devolve into childishness.

Often, it seems like this concept of "disinformation" you invoke just serves as a way people give themselves moral license to suspend normal rules of debate conduct in the face of disagreement. Being charitable to your opponents and having to engage with their claims is tiring and difficult, and sometimes they even come better prepared - how much easier if you can just frame dissent as dangerous enemy action and shut it down.

> freeze peach

Do you not think that trying to malign your opposition by putting a comical misspelling in their mouths is a bit infantile as a rhetorical tactic? The same thing being done to you would look something like an insinuation that what is being banned is "hurting someone's widdle fee-fees"; surely the discussion here would not benefit if everyone stooped down to that level.

It is by no means a good publication, but at the same time being accepted as a citation on Wikipedia or not is not necessarily a particularly objective measure of quality. I recommend reading https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/reliable-sources-how-wik... for the critical perspective on Wikipedia's integrity in this regard.

Maybe because I didn't understand what you said. Who does "her" refer to?

"Her"->"the"? (Or, who is "she" here?)

Either way, in what way is this relevant? If the human's labor is not useful at any price point to any entity with money, food or housing, then they presumably will not get paid/given food/housing for it.