achierius

That's a very broad statement; the reality depends on the specific order and monastery in question. To be sure monasteries are wary about all who inquire, thus the usual two-year neophyte period. Beyond that some will expect more from novices, other less, but there are many stories of broken people retreating to monastic life even today. Indeed many (within the Church) expound that as a key role of monasteries, providing a place for people to escape from the world. If you just want to live a Godly life, you can do that in society; monasteries are precisely the place you go to do so outside of it.

Actually that's not generally true. Janitors at least work 12 months a year, many schoolteachers are paid ~9 despite being expected to work through them (on lesson prep &c).

Not everyone's had the luxury of saving for years and years. Some people just got into the industry (remember 'learn to code'? not to mention recent graduates), others had to work their way up through lower-wage roles (e.g. contracting) just to get to a place from where they could hope to save. Other people have family to take care of and can't just throw everything into their savings.

I wonder how many sectors this will have to happen to until workers realize that nobody's safe. I was shocked to see journalists at major firms peddling the 'just learn to code' line a few years back, given how much their industry had contracted in the decades before.

No, it isn't. This is an incredibly modern phenomenon. We see examples of peoples moving en masse throughout history, yes, but the idea that everyday individuals should expect to leave their community is an incredibly recent one. Such would have seemed monstrous to people even a few hundred years ago. Fun fact: Socrates wasn't actually sentenced to death, he was sentenced to death or exile, and chose death over having to leave his home behind.

> Millions of people migrate every year today

A just society that doesn't force them to.

He said "as Americans, we're better than that", does that sound like defending? That he was conflicted about it isn't too surprising, he was ratting out his colleagues and the institution he had worked for through the entire of his professional life.

To the rest, you've fallen for their trick. Three CIA threw the book at him, and indeed tried to convict him for his leaks: "The five-count indictment against Kiriakou charged him with violations of both the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (for allegedly revealing the identity of a covert agent) and the Espionage Act (for allegedly revealing national defense information to unauthorized individuals such as journalists). He was also charged with making false statements to the CIA about a book that he was seeking to publish."

The Intelligence Identities Protection Act is just the charge that stuck. When you're revealing government secrets, it's very, very hard not to accidentally cross the line, especially when you consider that the whole justice system is arranged in their favor, not yours.

The result is that lots of people say they support whistleblowers, but anytime someone actually whistleblows they back the government line and say "they went too far". Why is the onus on whistleblowers, acting in secret and with fear of retribution at every step, to perfectly separate the illegal actions from the legal, and punish only the former? Why is the onus not on our government, the elected representatives who ought to serve us and obey the law, to not commit crimes against humanity in the first place?

If you demand perfection from whistleblowers but accept faults in your government, don't be surprised if you don't get many whistleblowers.

And yet they solved it. You don't think mathematicians have been trying to brute force a counterexample for decades now? Only with AI did it actually work. Even the researchers that got scooped were using AI to drive the work -- not a dig at them, they were certainly wronged here, but just to point out that AI was essential in this.

Yes there was human involvement. But that does ~nothing to change the fact that this is an incredible leap forward, and one that should be viewed with deep concern.

Just like with John Kiriakou, the only man ever convicted in connection with the torture program? He went to prison for two years despite only ever leaking information about illegal programs, lost his wife, lost all his money; is that the mercy you expected Snowden to submit to?

Slapped down by Jensen Huang? Do you think he's some kind of neutral arbiter? Certainly he's not on your side.

This is a weak argument. Almost everyone who's talking about catastrophic risk is also worried about mundane risks. Arguing "well how could they kill everyone?" serves nobody but Altman and Amodei.

> despite the absurd fantasies of LLM fans

Absurd fantasies like solving a Millennium Prize Problem? How is this not prima facie absurd? And if that's come to pass, why should we believe your bar for anything else?

Do you seriously think that's that people mean when they quote that?

Interesting! I admit the AI-written text is rough to read, it could have used a pass or two from an actual human. E.g. "Publishing it unresolved rather than tuning until it matches." -- thanks for not lying, I guess?

Fun:

> In my first run, Belady — an offline oracle — lost to LRU. That's not a result, that's a broken harness, and it's worth publishing because I expect it to be common.

> The cause: inserting a long chain into a near-full cache lets a policy evict the very prefix it is currently building. LRU is accidentally immune because just-inserted blocks have the newest timestamp.

Not 100% surprised that this wasn't picked up as a security issue; denial-of-service is bad, but ultimately doesn't give you a direct path to stealing secrets / hijacking identity / etc.

It is pretty egregious though, I hope they fix this. I expect there'll be a Radar tracking this now that it's made it to the HN front page.

But Tailwind is still being used? It's just being used by AI now.

If you don't need to 'understand' to do this, then maybe what you call 'understanding' is less important than you think. When people in the real world reach for a tool, what they care about is whether or not it'll produce results, not whether or not it has the capacity for interior phenomenological experience.

You're probably correct. FWIW most people with math degrees haven't gone on to do math research regardless, so in that regard this isn't a big change.

There is a land war in Europe for the first time in generations. The only reason you can say that big things aren't happening is because you're lucky enough to live where they're happening.

But ultimately this is just an engineering problem, no?

Yes, if you just hack steering into a model it's going to hurt performance, because doing so takes the model out of the regime it was trained for and validated in. But if that steering were to be accounted for (e.g. by rearchitecting the training process) there's no reason why it couldn't work. Diffusion-based image generation models, for example, 'by default' just generated random images out of the noise; steering (i.e. the user prompt) was added on as a secondary input, which models had to be re-trained in order to use.

> We have AGI and the intelligence abundance is going to be amazing for everyone in the future.

Why? These 'geniuses in a datacenter' aren't good, they aren't 'aligned', they don't work for you. They'll take your job, then they'll hack your computer, and then who knows what's next.

I mean it's definitely an outrage, but I find it hard to believe that you went from "yay OpenAI" to "literally destroy the company" over... accusations of academic misconduct?

Have you read the actual statement https://cims.nyu.edu/~tristanb/statement.pdf ?

> I should say here why I interpreted their statement the way I did, the in- terpretation I will discuss below. The route to the Clay problem through a smooth force, options c and d in Fefferman’s statement of the problem, is the route Luis and Diego opened and the one Levent and I had quietly chosen to attack. Almost nobody else I know of was working on it. It is not the direction one arrives at in a few days by giving a model the problem statement. When I heard “forced,” it was a bright red flag.

...

> I asked when the first prompt had been sent by them. This question was not answered directly by OpenAI for some time. Eventually it was agreed that it had been sent in the past few days, after information about our work had reached OpenAI. > I asked whether the model had been trained on, or had access to, our sessions in Codex, into which we had been putting all our drafts for the whole of this project. I was told the model did not look up user data. I asked again, about training, and I did not get an answer.

It's not a direct accusation, but it's not far off.

You shouldn't accuse other people of spreading misinformation when you haven't read the actual sources in question, it's possible that they might know more than you.

While I'm generally pretty negative on claims that the labs are 'scamming' the public with misrepresentations of model capabilities, it's hard to see how this wouldn't qualify.

- the OpenAI researchers claimed that they had "just told it to work on the problem" with little human input

- in fact, they had a whole team working on it

- and used, among other things, the work of third party human researchers to drive the work

- then threatened? a researcher who tried to go against theit planned narrative

Just from this document (which is of course only one side of the story) it really sounds like OpenAI was hoping to publish and say "we just told the model to try harder and it solved a Millennium problem!". Not great if true.

This part in particular was especially egregious:

> I said that if OpenAI released its result in the way proposed I would go public with what happened. The reply was, “Why would you ruin your career?” I replied that I am an academic, and asked why he thought going public would ruin my career. The reply was, “If you don’t want me to be nice, then I don’t have to be nice.”

Would you change your mind on this if they became profitable? What would convince you that the labs are real threats worth organizing against? Or are you just dedicated to boosting AI until your dying day?

Have you read a single paper in ai safety?

Unfortunately I can't comment much on Apple's situation since I work there :)

Regardless what I mean to convey is that ARM would prefer such deviations to be rare, and especially for them to not be visible from userspace. Deviations will always exist if only due to hardware bugs, so contracts can only do so much.

(Total guess) this feels like an attempt at restricting what parts of the hardware pipeline need to know what; if prefetches need to key off of both the device bit and the nx bit, then both of those need to be piped into the frontend, whereas if device is only relevant for data prefetches then only the nx bit needs to be available there (while device would be piped into the backend where the data prefetcher lives).

FWIW if you look at WebKit/JavaScriptCore, the trend has been towards less-frequent code modification, e.g. inline caches are mostly no longer repatched inline. Whole-function reoptimization is still worth the overhead of sys_icache_invalidate() + `ISB`'ing everyone involved, but at smaller granularities not so much.

> while ARM does provide a reference implementation of the architecture, vendors are free to customize it at will, or even roll their own implementations

A nitpick, but this is only true for some vendors, depending on their license, and is very much company-by-company. Many vendors, even big names like Meta, don't have the ability to roll their own. And even for the ones who do, 'customize at will' is a bit strong, as ARM very much does want to maintain uniformity across userspace implementations. E.g. Nvidia shouldn't add new traps for architecturally-legal behavior, since then code compiled for Apple hardware wouldn't work on Grace. Or worse, not trap for architecturally-illegal behavior, since then code compiled for Grace might not work for anyone else at all!

Is that just the MiniBrowser?! I have to say I can't imagine daily driving that if so. Why WebKit over a Chromium-based (and more featureful) browser?