Maybe they'll ask for a "slower pace of development" so it doesn't look as much like they're just asking for new regulatory barriers on their competition.
I am 100% certain the code you write by hand will be better quality, even with AI pointing out options, than letting the AI string together completely obtuse abstractions.
It's something an LLM would never be able to come up with because it requires a depth of experience that LLMs just don't have. It's authentically human.
I'm not sure why you think I was assuming that. Or why either of those wouldn't be a valid reason their actions shouldn't result in punishment the most direct way possible to the parent. A loss for their own team. That's not a good outcome for someone who treats their kid as a lottery ticket no matter who they were harassing. Although I do understand the response in a sibling post that it still gives the asshat parent some degree of control over policy and outcome. It seems like you may have mistaken some of what I said as implying something about the recipient of the abuse. Nothing I said had anything to do with the recipient of abuse. Just the parent and the team they want to win for vicarious satisfaction.
Result is a permanent cancellation? Does that mean the match is nullified or the winner at the time wins? Either way, one team could draw a strategic black card. Seems like cancellation of the match is not the correct outcome. What about penalizing the harassing team? A red card result for the team (down a player for the next game). This seems like an odd way to handle abusive behavior from parents. Abandoning the current game may be good if parents are behaving that way, but there needs to be a serious consequence for the parent's team too. Otherwise it will just be another tool.
Wait... Which of the 2 did Altman not do where Amodei did? I mean, maybe not quite 8 attempts at regulatory capture. But come on. And the only reason OpenAI didn't get blacklisted is they rolled over for the worst applications.
The illusions of thinking produced by a "thinking trace" is just as ignorant of reality as the first and last tokens. All they know of reality is the tokens in their context.
The problem is, LLMs have such little understanding of the world around them. "Find exploits in specific software on this device" may as well be "find exploits".
The point isn't what happens after something is solved. Where is the motivation for humans to study/find a potential solution if your kids are going to starve while you do it? These things can brute force problems that have a clearly and feasibly searchable answer, but they can't make creative leaps. It will be a severe dark ages for mathematics if humans stop contributing.
Getting the kids to insist they be paid what their contributions are worth would raise the boat for all developers. Of course that would take some sort of big bad union, which the oligarch vc asshats really don't like.
#2 (prove those chats changed model behavior) is pretty straightforward if the anonymized data from chats can be actively searched by a model. In fact, it could be very clear if the provenance of context is traced. If anonymized data from chats leak into the context of an actively running model it would clearly influence the answer.
If the model has access to the "anonymized" data from chats, and the model is capable of building its own context from data that it can search through, including this data. Then it looks pretty damning. An independent review of the data traces from CoT and tool use involved in producing the result should make it clear one way or the other. Seems like discovery in a civil lawsuit could be very productive.
But you get more funding when you call it Recursive Self Improvement. Even better if you call it RSI so it doesn't evoke pesky skynet scenarios outside of AI safety circles.
This only applies if LLMs aren't making mistakes 20% of the time and that's the problem. When you're only saving time on the easy part, it doesn't matter if you're working twice as fast because review of the tricky parts is still going to take 80% of what it would have taken to do the whole thing. Total effort ends up being more rather than less if you want the same quality.