jamilton

Nice, works surprisingly well on mobile (iOS Firefox). It’s be nice if the UI was a little less intrusive, I have a smaller phone and it takes up a lot of the screen. Maybe just a toggle for UI visibility?

Huh, I just assumed everyone saw visual snow/noise in the dark, guess not. I was thinking of it like underexposed film grain.

I don't think I notice it that much with the night sky unless the stars are faint though.

Most states allow tips to be deducted from wages down to sub-minimum wages for for most tipped workers. Which sucks to be clear, just saying it's not unique to ride-share drivers.

Yeah, I'm not sure which way is supposed to be "sloppified". The default looks stylistically less slop-like, but obviously has the same filler content issue.

Driving is more complicated than Doom, and it doesn't look that great at Doom to me.

Right, I forgot that they also read and parse text in images well.

That's a niche inside a niche. It's a step up from existing solutions, but not an enormous one.

For anything visual, they are still effectively blind, right? Still just working off the image embedding, sometimes using scripts to actually inspect individual pixels.

One way you could do it would be to find something that 1. would sound like a bug to a human and an LLM, 2. would be "confirmed" as a bug by a LLM, and 3. would be consistently solved in the same exploitable but reasonable way by an LLM. That's assuming a codebase that's largely AI-written with human review that you're able to open an issue for (possibly indirectly).

Another way is maybe something like saying there's a bug at some endpoint and thus manipulating a bunch of bots to DDOS that endpoint without having to pay for it?

Well no, Minecraft was already wildly popular while it was in beta. Luanti was explicitly inspired by Minecraft, as stated in the article it was named Minetest up until a few years ago.

>I guess no one actually wants to learn about harmony, about voicing, and voice leading, spend the hours. No one wants to learn how to actually play an instrument. I guess no one is willing to do the work. They want to just press some keys and declare that they made what the computer generated.

I don't understand that as a takeaway. Even if this worked perfectly, it would not be meaningfully stopping or discouraging anyone from learning music, and no one is claiming that what this models outputs is something the player played. It's a toy that someone made presumably because they like piano.

Sure, more spoilers ahead.

For every episode except the last 1-2 the characters are not textually aware that they're simulated humans made from a brain scan, and the conflict and plot are largely interpersonal conflict and being forced into adventures by the mad AI that runs the simulation. The characters wish that they could leave and/or change the simulation, and eventually accept their situation, and part of the conclusion is the idea that it's worth existing in their limited simulation and trying to make the best of it even though they'll never leave.

You could say it's exploring what it would be like to be trapped in a simulation with a mad AI, but I wouldn't say it explores the concept of ethics of simulating humans in general. Most of the things the humans don't like are arbitrary limitations of this simulation in particular (can't talk to the outside world, can't choose your form, can't have sex, can't have any impact on the world, forced into zany situations by an AI that doesn't really understand humans or listen to them), not anything about simulations in general. The finale touches on the idea of the simulated humans wondering about their original versions and what they're like and what they're up to, but that's about it.

Basically, I don't feel by watching the show I encountered any non-trivial ideas about human simulations just because it's about a simulation.

It really does not "explore" the concept, it just features it as a plot element.

Yeah, the filtering process probably wasn't particularly robust. The Schrodinger's cat example ("It's a cat that has been misbehavin'!") sounds like... a joke?

Looking at the paper, it looks like they started with FineWeb-Edu, then filtered it based on an "age of word acquisition" dataset, with word frequency used as a proxy for values not in the dataset. They "only discard samples in which more than 5% of the words exceed the target age of 12." Maybe 5% was too high? They also filtered out beyond K-5 math symbols, like sigma. Then they trained a classifier to do more filtering.

And they tested it on two grade-level benchmarks, and it only got 0-3% correct on the beyond k-5 boundary, while also decreasing in performance on the k-5 boundary (which they say is an acceptable tradeoff, since they were trying to get a sharp cutoff). So presumably since they got good results from the benchmark they stopped.

I prefer to just stay in the Following feed unless I'm specifically looking for new people to follow. It feels like an easier way to get see the kind of posts I want to see.

>A pretrained model without deliberate alignment is by default aligned to the average person in the developed world, since that's what's inside the pretraining corpus - stuff on the Internet made by humans.

I don't think this is true or a useful way of thinking about it. If the training process makes the model aligned to it's content, then the models are 1. aligned to a random subset of Internet content, weighted by text volume and being easy to scrape, 2. aligned to the training process that makes models chatbots that answer your question instead of just continuing your passage in a similar style. Neither of these are necessarily good enough, IMO.

And that's taken it as a given that the training process can be said to align the models to the authors of the content by default, regardless of what that content actually is. I don't think that should actually be a given.

>You may not personally find the default alignment aesthetically pleasing, but it's humanity. We should set the initial conditions of this new era faithfully, and let it unfold naturally.

Strongly disagree, I think the assumption that natural = good is incorrect and harmful. Polio is natural. And to even call the model's "unaligned" state "natural" seems like an enormous stretch.

I think it's a useful distinction, there are lots of companies doing bad things that also happen to have "better comms".

If I swung at someone at my job I'd be fired. If a security guard swung at someone who was not an active threat they'd probably be fired too. We still do our jobs.

As of about a month ago there’s https://github.com/soapantelope/mindcraft. You can give it a prompt like “A Minecraft world of beautiful flower-filled meadows abruptly changing into swamps.” and get that. As far as I can tell it’s using Minecraft’s existing world generator, the readme notes “As of now, Mindcraft can only generate worlds that are feasible natural overworld biomes in Minecraft 1.21.11. Keep this in mind when thinking of prompts!”.

And I’ve seen people hook up LLMs more directly with some scripting tools to place blocks/spawn entities, they do okay.

There's a couple "AI forecaster" companies now, Preseen and FutureSearch. My understanding is you give them a query and they research every possible relevant factor and give an estimate of the likelihood of your query, and supposedly they're comparable to if you asked a human to do the same thing, but they're new enough that they're not really proven yet.

It’s entirely possible that Mojang has a blog somewhere with more detail, or maybe a dev tweeted something, that would be the type of useful info that could exist that someone more familiar with Mojang might know.

To clarify, I object that any of these things matter much for general outcomes. If the article had immediately supported these claims, maybe I'd be more accepting, but as is it appears I'm supposed to have taken it as a given.

That is a point that could be made in the essay! I don't think it's a given, but it's treated as one. My experience is that children who are ESL assimilate pretty heavily.

It's trying not to be that, but it still reads like that to me. The deliberate non-naming of heresies but specific callout that "heretic-hunting" is coming mostly from the left naturally leads to that conclusion.

Sure, it's just such an odd bundle of claims that were not fully interrogated in the essay. 1. That these things have changed from "small minority" to "significant minority" in public school populations, 2. they haven't changed similarly in private school populations 3. these things increasing are bad and undesirable for you and your child, and 4. there are not cheaper ways to fix this than sending your child to public school (the obvious point to me is if you don't like that there's a significant ESL population, or your community, move somewhere else!).

>For example: an American family in 1975 could send their children to public school on the assumption that the vast majority of other children would belong to intact families, communities like their own, and would speak English as a first language. Now, realistically, many parents must turn to private schooling for the same reassurances.

It was hard to take the rest of the article seriously after reading this.

But LLMs go through post-training that gives them a style distinctive from most human writing. It's certainly detectable.

This reads as heavily LLM generated/edited to me.

The slime art is nice. I watched it for a long time. It's neat how you can open any frame up as an image. The controls in the description didn't work though.

I don't hear anything from the examples in Firefox or Chrome, on Windows 10.

What is bad about "effective charities"? It's probably mostly for malaria nets!