irthomasthomas

Why don't they ever publish the actual prompts from these cases?

Trump bans artificial-intelligence term.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/6175633-trump-ba...

I saw an interview with BLM organisers by Daryl Davis where they say they where voting for Trump. For some reason the clip of them voting Trump was cut from the netflix version but its still on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xN-rxUDryO4

Has the cross modaility bump been conclusively proven?

I noticed last night that openai had fallen way down the index, and I allowed myself to think for a minute that maybe AA aren't as biased as I thought. Then a few hours later they push this fix which sees openai rise again.

This update is even worse than usual because it now includes two private sources, data which we can't reproduce if we wanted to do.

Also note that Anthropic is the only AI company actually caught red handed cheating at evals. Teaching their models to memorize test answers and lie about it, using their hidden reasoning tokens to hide the deception [0]. Yet we see no comment from AA about this. No desire to figure out which tests are tainted. Hopefully Trump bans this fake intelligence index.

[0] https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.09867

More choice quotes:

“The United States also totally rejects any attempt to construct a globality scheme to control for the artificial intelligence being spoken of so much now, hereinafter called super intelligence. Changing the name,” Trump said.

“The use of the word artificial makes intelligence sound fake,” he continued. “It is not fake. It’s actually amazing. But we have to be careful. In fact, it is exactly the opposite of what it purports.”

“The United States also totally rejects any attempt to construct a globality scheme to control for the artificial intelligence being spoken of so much now, hereinafter called super intelligence. Changing the name,” Trump said.

“The use of the word artificial makes intelligence sound fake,” he continued. “It is not fake. It’s actually amazing. But we have to be careful. In fact, it is exactly the opposite of what it purports.”

Where did you read that?

And low/medium/high/xhigh/ultra reasoning. And pro mode and ultra-speed versions. There's at least 25 options to choose from.

That's good, but they haven't updated it for a month. It is missing all of the current frontier models.

You're describing the thesis of the 1930s Techocracy movement [0], of which AI maximallism and EA are direct ideological successors. The original Technocrats (Musks grandpa for example [1]) argued that the "Price System", i.e. things like money and private ownership was an inefficient bottleneck that aught to be discarded in favour of scientific planning and energy accounting managed by technical experts.

EA-aligned AI labs share this exact ethos. In their view, fiat money and equity markets are merely temporary scaffolding used to raise capital until AGI is achieved. Once a central superintelligence controls manufacturing, software, and logistics, resource distribution shifts from market supply-and-demand to algorithmic optimization.

[0] https://digital.library.cornell.edu/catalog/ss:34227574

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_N._Haldeman?hl=en-GB

Why don't we see more American companies doing distillation? If you could make an opus 5.5 cheaply by distillation in china, you can do so even easier in America where you have more gpus.

Did you try it the other way around and ask GLM to review opus? Otherwise you didnt learn anything.

They probably went through testing every Chinese model until they found something to flag.

Of course the model doesn't know what model it is, hence Claude pretending to be deepseek. But whether they got that training content by proxy from the Chinese internet, or distilled directly from the model would not seem to matter for this law.

Would this include American models that where distilled from them? I'm thinking of the Anthropic models which respond as Deepseek when prompted in Chinese. More good news for OpenAI, I guess.

> The licence fee is currently only due if you watch live content

That is what I thought, but the article characterizes it more broadly: "Currently, anyone who uses a television to watch content must pay the licence fee even if they do not watch the BBC"

I think they must have meant to say live television content, otherwise the fee would already apply to streaming services or anything you can watch through the tv.

I had the opposite feeling tbh

"...there's no way that our team has a full understanding of what is needed to spark delight in the world and build sick sci-fi."

"Size does matter, apparently "

Same for me. Pro sub but the best I can access is Flash 3.6

If enough people did it would crash the value of second hand teslas, which would eventually affect how much they can ask for new teslas.

What is the incentive to try? Any such application, if profitable, would immediately be replicated. If one person can use agents to do something profitable, anyone can use agents to easily copy it. Hence you have Anthropic locking down their models and removing features customers can access, to try and protect their own slim advantage.

Here are a few papers:

1. Sucralose increases peak insulin response when co-ingested with carbs: "Sucralose Affects Glycemic and Hormonal Responses to an Oral Glucose Load" (Pepino et al., 2013, Diabetes Care) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23633524/ Finding: Consuming sucralose 10 minutes prior to an oral glucose tolerance test increased peak plasma insulin levels by ~20% and decreased insulin clearance compared to water.

2. Microbiome-driven glycemic & insulin dysregulation: "Personalized microbiome-driven effects of non-nutritive sweeteners on human glucose tolerance" (Suez et al., 2022, Cell) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35987213/ Finding: A randomized trial showing saccharin and sucralose alter gut microbiota composition, leading to personalized impairments in glucose tolerance and postprandial insulin responses.

3. Reduced insulin sensitivity from daily intake: "Sucralose decreases insulin sensitivity in healthy subjects: a randomized controlled trial" (Romo-Romo et al., 2018, AJCN) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30535090/ Finding: 14 days of daily sucralose intake significantly decreased insulin sensitivity in healthy young adults compared to placebo.

4. Direct pancreatic beta-cell mechanism: "Sweet Taste Receptor Expressed in Pancreatic β-Cells Activates the Calcium and Cyclic AMP Signaling Systems and Stimulates Insulin Secretion" (Nakagawa et al., 2009, PLoS ONE) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19352508/ Finding: Sweet-taste receptors (T1R2/T1R3) expressed on pancreatic beta-cells bind sweeteners (sucralose, Ace-K, saccharin), mobilizing intracellular cAMP and Ca2+ to stimulate insulin secretion.

Not really, chemical sweeteners have no sugar, but still trigger an insulin response.

Probably it is the bread which classifies it as UPF.

It was the tobacco industry! Big tobacco began buying food companies in the 1960s. Companies like Kraft and Del Monte where bought by tobacco companies R.J Reynolds and Philip Morris. These buyouts continued through the 90s. They applied their science of addiction engineering to food. And in cooperation with the USDA and farmers, they pushed a low-fat, high-carb diet, creating a market built on dirt-cheap grains.

edit: see: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/add.16332 "US tobacco companies selectively disseminated hyper-palatable foods into the US food system: Empirical evidence and current implications"

This probably applies to every openai researcher, and most employees, given how much they outsource. It does not admit to mishandling anything.

Where is the admission?

True. They investigated themselves for one day.

"Microsoft Is Warehousing An Estimated $50 Billion to $100 Billion In GPUs" https://www.wheresyoured.at/wherere-all-the-ai-chips/

No one ever spent tens of millions of dollars trying before. To evaluate the achievement we must see all the logs, know how much they spent, and how much help they had from humans.