jfyi

Hardly a new thing.

Oh and btw, it's not "DNS Hijacking" it's a "Domain Helper", see: https://feross.org/shame-on-you-comcast/

It's only cognitive dissonance if you look at the "US as a whole".

Americans can be charitable individually, but that does not contradict the reality that US corporate and institutional structures operate on a strict "profit above all else" mandate.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Goomba_fallacy

Sorry, yeah I don't trust Altman and Musk, the companies they run inherit that. Their public face betrays an almost cartoonish evil, it's sad people can't see that.

Other labs seem to be working the exact same angles as them, but just have the good sense to not be so open about it. It's not the "lab" people have a problem with, it's their leadership. These people cannot be trusted to make the right decisions for society with this technology.

A surprising number of developers I work with don't actually know how to use curl. Postman is ubiquitous among that crowd.

Yeah, this was my thought (as a layman) as well.

It seems some level of interpretability, even if it requires tooling, could result in the ability to spin out synthetic training data sets from other models in an automated fashion.

They almost certainly knew...

https://huggingface.co/Qwen/Qwen3.5-0.8B#best-practices

> In thinking mode, we have observed that when using the recommended sampling parameters, Qwen3.5-0.8B is more prone to entering thinking loops compared to other Qwen3.5 models

There's also an active issue tracking this here: http://github.com/nobodywho-ooo/nobodywho/issues/557

Pretty sure that is also why this model was specifically chosen.

No, we have a moral obligation to make sure Sam Altman's trillion dollar business does ethical shit.

If that means taking chunks of it because he can't be a responsible steward, so be it. It would behoove him to get on board before that is necessary.

> Could you define what you mean by human perspective?

They can't. This is an "anti-consciousness" qualia argument adapted to a general purpose anti-ai argument.

They are arguing that meaning doesn't come from the accurate reproduction of information, but from the subjective, lived experience behind the words. That subjectivity can't be defined, it's the whole point. It will never be defined, no matter how far along we come.

> Maybe this is a timeless problem, but I fear it getting worse.

It's both, I think. It seems to me that it happens during periods of fast technological advancement. We just happen to be living through a sustained period of that.

The historical precedent is that it slows down again after people get a chance to take in the new reality. I am not sure how comforting that is.

> Maybe you shouldn't take the "you" of this article personally, but as a reference to your 100 mouth breathing neighbors.

That's great and all, but if policy is created for the lowest common denominator because of these 100 dopamine-depleted donkeys, is it going to impact me?

It increases signal to noise ratio in comparison to raw google results.

You might or might not miss that hobbyist web page. I can't say for certain, but I do know that most of my self learning explicitly includes going over the history of the topic.

Or you know, same scenario, but you are looking for information on how quanta work. You really can't make sense of the first 10 pages of google results, but you happen on "Motion Mountain" on the 11th page and you end up spending the next two years telling people the universe is made of little knots.

If that sounds like a pretty specific example, it's because it's a real one of someone I knew. I don't think the tool here is going to massively impact the quality. The person's judgement will play a way heavier role in that.

The average person was able to look at the devices up until now and see a tool. Now they see something they don't understand, but sure does seem smarter than they are, and has the aesthetics of being a person on the other side of the computer.

Do you think this guy has the technical depth to make these connections? He's working off what he can see, and he will likely grow old and die still lacking that understanding. So will a vast majority of users of these services.

What you are seeing is people realigning with a baseline of their reality. They have to trust what they are being told on this by someone, and they need to figure out who and how amid malicious actors that are trying to bend their beliefs.

> Holy moly we all jumped on this comment at the same time didn't we.

It's good to see push back against this narrative that is trying to develop that this isn't any kind of big deal.

This has been every machine on the internet compromised for at least 12 hours and probably some that are not going to ever get patched.

Sure practicality is always an issue. It's an issue that attackers will go to great lengths to resolve too.

What if it's the Starbucks at 1730 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20006 for an extended period of time? Compounded with other security issues like password reuse...

We can always draw a line and say, "that's not practical". The assessment an attacker is likely to do is going to be "is this practical inside my budget for the value I hope to acquire?" or maybe even just "waow, lulz".

Yeah, it increases the attack surface of mitm attacks to your network from the local os level.

Vance really is something. American's own little Smeagol. Sad little twisted creature that doesn't even understand the power that is bending him.

Do you think he realizes he will be discarded?

So your point is that scripture is irrelevant, but you are asking for scripture to defend a statement. Also, there have been at least 4 other verses mentioned in this thread.

Really, what has happened here is that you have failed to give an alternative interpretation. Your entire argument stands on your ability to do so.

I already went over the relevance to extreme wealth in another comment, I encourage you to address it there.

You explicitly asked for the exact biblical text, but when provided with it, you are now claiming it is "weaponizing religion to be non-inclusive."

Isn't the exact opposite problem much more prevalent here? Namely, that extreme wealth simply buys access and exceptions to these ethical teachings.

Yes, he's Lutheran, and yet he practices the theology of glory. He has lost the plot, very likely deliberately as you suggest.

It really is. The way I see it, you have two routes to go if you want a compromised key to use for your intelligence agency.

Do we pick something properly secure and nail our asses to the wall if it is ever found out, or do we pick something that looks like negligence so it can be shrugged off even if it makes discovery more likely?

Add to that eMudhra's quick exit, stage left. There is definitely something that smells rotten here.

While I admit their explanation is questionable, they did admit they messed up.

I see this more as "we didn't know this was so complex and the juice no longer looks worth the squeeze."

I am certainly guilty of general negativity to that book. There are plenty of legitimate gripes, like the content is simplistic and overly repetitive. It really could have been a 10 page pamphlet.

But let's put that aside, the negativity really comes from the fact that every time I have seen it brought up in real life, it is being wielded like a cudgel by a person not practicing what is in the book. It is effectively corporate short hand for "you need to learn how to be a better servant".

Wait, I want to know which text editor they used! Now that you mention it, this is an important factor in purchasing any software. This information needs to be tagged at point of sale.

Decline fails to uphold the prevailing world economic ideology. That's the real problem with population decline the way I see it. We will need to adjust in ways that don't support the idea of "unlimited growth".

> Where would you draw the line on lifestyle that can and should reasonably change?

I'm with you, but let's just say it.

People, as a whole, don't want to make the changes we all know would make the world better.

People, as individuals? While there are exceptions, the reality is a classic tragedy of the commons. Individuals generally won't accept a short-term drop in their standard of living while watching their neighbors refuse to do the same.

It is what it is, frankly. We can and will change our lifestyles at the very last possible moment. Let's hope it's enough.

This is just OpenAI stealing more work.

I don't have a problem with them publishing. I don't have a problem with the process and how they are interacting with it. I am delighted that they are actually acting as stewards of these works.

All that aside, they should be paying the people verifying the problems. The thing that really gets me is that we know anything published in the process of verifying this is going to be vacuumed up into the next training session.

No, I am 100% serious. There is no reason to fuck around. Anything is better than the dystopian hellscape we are headed for currently. The time for discussion is past. The time for action is now. If corporations don't want this to happen, they need to get off their ass and start fixing what they broke before the people have to.

Also, you'd do better if you assumed good faith.

Clearly because everyone will not be able to pay for it to the same extent. Though, if you have a 1200 agent swarm to throw at a hf sized problem, I'd be excited to see your writeup.

Exactly. Eroding trust is such a successful strategy because it weaponizes confirmation bias. Once people are primed to be skeptical, they often come to conclusions irrationally first, and then (knowingly or not) seek only to prove themselves right.

I, for one, am excited that we are now finally able to be "Secure™".

Wait, I guess I missed the "more", that kind of puts a damper on the whole thing.

Seriously though, security will continue to be an issue, always. Even if it was perfect, the benefits of it will not be applied uniformly. There will also be the same technology being improperly used causing new exploitables to go live.