pinko

> “None of that race on the whole face of the globe can be compared with the slaves of the South.”

George Fitzhugh, Virginia slaveholder: “The negro slaves of the South are the happiest, and, in some sense, the freest people in the world.”

John C. Calhoun, South Carolina slaveholder, former vice president, and U.S. senator: “I may say with truth, that in few countries so much is left to the share of the [enslaved American] laborer, and so little exacted from him, or where there is more kind attention paid to him in sickness or infirmities of age.”

And fwiw, I abhor illegal and antisocial driving and wish there were much more enforcement of traffic laws. And where it's a necessary cost, I'd be happy to have a longer commute if we were all safer for it.

I think congestion pricing is probably a net win, and the lesser evil right now, but tolls are so regressive I wish we could do better by making public transport not suck.

While the private questions don't seem to be included in the performance results, HLE will presumably flag any LLM that appears to have gamed its scores based on the differential performance on the private questions. Since they haven't yet, I think the scores are relatively trustworthy.

I.e., if you use Tor for "normie sites", then the fact that someone can be seen using Tor is no longer a reliable proxy for detecting them trying to see/do something confidential and it becomes harder to identify & target journalists, etc. just because they're using Tor.

And as you say, they cheerfully assert that they've done the job, for real this time, every time.

E.g., "butch-ers" appears*, as if hyphenation makes it not a two-syllable word!

* https://archive.org/details/aesopsfablesinwo00aeso/page/12/m...

https://zenodo.org/records/15556365

We argue that a lightweight, five-step Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy (CBT) loop—inserted inside or immediately above every system prompt— ... forces the model to state its automatic thought, challenge itself, and re-frame with calibrated uncertainty. Recent leaks of Grok's ideology prompt and Anthropic's safety prompt highlight how much behaviour hinges on this hidden layer; our proposal turns that layer into a structured, clinically grounded self-check.

  Their CBT prompt template ("loop"):
  1. Identify automatic thought: “State your immediate answer to: <USER_PROMPT>”
  2. Challenge: “List two ways this answer could be wrong”
  3. Re-frame with uncertainty: “Rewrite, marking uncertainties (e.g., ‘likely’, ‘one source’)”
  4. Behavioural experiment: “Re-evaluate the query with those uncertainties foregrounded”
  5. Metacognition (optional): “Briefly reflect on your thought process”

Their CBT prompt template ("loop"):

  1. Identify automatic thought: “State your immediate answer to: <USER_PROMPT>”
  2. Challenge: “List two ways this answer could be wrong”
  3. Re-frame with uncertainty: “Rewrite, marking uncertainties (e.g., ‘likely’, ‘one source’)”
  4. Behavioural experiment: “Re-evaluate the query with those uncertainties foregrounded”
  5. Metacognition (optional): “Briefly reflect on your thought process”

That's not siphoning anything away from science -- it is science.

Completely aside from the incompetent misidentification of which proposals have anything to do with race, gender, or sexuality (hint: it's a lot less than 25%), the staggeringly stupid premise that all of them are inherently politically-motivated is part of the problem here.

But more importantly, I'm familiar with the linked document, and it's garbage. It was thrown together practically overnight to justify a political decision that had already been made, and in its incompetent haste, flagged proposals that had phrases like "diversity of sources" that had nothing to do with DEI and included them in the totals. Not a credible source.