sigmarule

Surely figuring this out would be a very marginal increase in time spent on writing your large post and series of responses.

> You may not like it, but these are products and services that consumers want to use.

The human brain's reward machinery is not and should not be the arbiter of what a healthy society allows to be advertised and sold. Truth becomes a liability when your competitors can deceive without consequence. We are sacrificing societal values for economic value and destroying the fabric of trust that a healthy society foundationally requires in the process. This article is a list of degeneracy bred by mindless and ideological deference to the flavor of unbridled capitalism sold to us by those who stand to benefit from it most.

Unbridled capitalism undoes itself, and those responsible for the undoing are the sole victors. Maybe then those cheering from the sidelines will come to the realization - moot, at that point - that the machiavellian ends were never for us, only the means.

Your experience is not reflective of mine at all, or my colleagues’, so I would check out the better SOTA models out again. I use codex extensively for security-related work - much of which is _overtly_ offensive - without issue. Same for Claude, minus Fable, after going through their approval process. I also went through OpenAI’s, but theirs was just basic KYC and instant. GPT-5.6 in Codex has produced full chain RCEs, ASLR bypass and all, in ubiquitous software with nothing more than a prompt and a few days of crunching. Things you’d be paying $$$ for just last year, now produced on not much more than a whim & a prompt. I can’t speak for Grok’s abilities wrt these types of things, but for your own sake, take the 5 mins it takes to complete the verification processes for OAI/Anthropic if you work in security.

Also, assuming people use Meta/FB/Instagram here, of all places, is certainly an assumption - very poor fodder for a “gotcha”. I find Elon’s political activities and the social beliefs he uses his purchased platform to spread loathsome and daft, and it will take a lot more than “almost as good on benchmarks but cheaper” to let my fiscal tendencies outweigh my moral ones. I’ve held similar beliefs for Zuck for far longer and have cut everything marred by the slime of his tentacles out of my digital life for years, as _many_ here have also done. Accusing someone of uneven application of moral influence over their decisions when you only have information relating to a single decision is poor argumentation.

If you find what Musk spreads palatable, or maintain distance and a lack of awareness, or just don’t care - fine. But don’t confuse the hill you chose with a moral high ground. Any snark you launch from such a position is likely going uphill, and then back down.

On a personal level, your own government can absolutely, 100% be more likely to do you harm than a foreign government, for simple jurisdictional reasons. They have more power over your life. And with an administration as corrupt and degenerate as the current US administration, it's an extremely reasonable perspective to have.

False: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49266746

Even if you are on the inside, there is absolutely no way you can say "absolutely not" with enough certainty to justify saying it in the first place.

That era is now! (Still)

Musk's proclaimed ambition is a superset of Amodei's, no? While both are racing towards AGI, only one is also trying to "back up" humanity to Mars, make their fully self-driving cars finally fully self-drive, dabble with a little human brain implant side project, datacenters in space, wars against fake mind virii, political kingmaking, something about tunnels, humanoid robots... His aggregate ambition is undoubtedly _less_ achievable by orders of magnitude.

This does, in all fairness, also imply that he has a higher upper bound for future possible "importance" / "benefit to humanity" - but in even more fairness, it is entirely irrelevant to my question, which was you believe Dario is >= as evil as Musk. An evil man doing good deeds is still an evil man; swapping "good deeds" with "ambition that enriches himself and may possibly help the rest of us in the future" doesn't make things any better. "Higher likelihood of his ambition ultimately benefiting humanity" does not make one less evil. (Neither does expressing clear disdain for a subset of humanity, thoughtlessly cutting hundreds of millions of dollars in humanitarian aid, cruelty towards your own child, etc).

A parting point: somebody who genuinely wants to save humanity and somebody who genuinely wants to be heralded as a savior of humanity are two very different types of people with very similar outward signals. A savior complex and a messiah complex look the same from the surface.

Genuinely curious - what has Dario done, said, caused, etc that makes you view him as >= Musk on the evilometer?

You mean what a strange era an opaque set of administration-approved companies live in...

> Organizations interested in model access may join the GPT 5.6 waitlist line, hosted at OpenAI's official Palm Spring satellite campus. Line begins at rear entrance with expedited VIP waitlist line options for holders of partnering cryptocurrency tokens. Application fee required for access to venue; waivers available for select US corporations.

/s, maybe

Basing decisions on political bias instead of intelligence, a nice little distillation of the times.

No, not at all.

Time to insolvency and time to retirement, apples and oranges…

There is not an absence of information.

There is information, from Anthropic, concerning the jailbreaks that motivated this action, that directly contradicts the statement.

There is just an absence of information backing the statement I responded to.

I find it so odd this is apparently so contentious a take.

That is a strawman. My contention is what you just implicitly acknowledged - there is not information put out yet to validate the quoted claim. There are claims to the contrary, as well, from Anthropic themselves.

The one I quoted, which contradicts Anthropic’s post and has no supporting evidence publicly available. That a jailbreak was found that accesses the model’s _raw_ capabilities. Something Anthropic has explained was not the case.

> A third-party demonstrated that it was possible to jailbreak the safety measures of Fable to access the raw Mythos abilities. Abilities which Anthropic say are too dangerous for the public.

Pressure test this assumption before getting behind this position.

The man seems to have severe difficulty interpreting fiction. See: his antichrist ramblings (sorry, "lectures").

We should not stop _all_ of the both-sidesing, but we absolutely should stop _some_ of the both-sidesing. Both-sidesing done without both (a) critical thinking and (b) honest intent is simply whataboutism, one of the many forms of societal pollutant that we seem to have fully normalized.

Your second sentence is a great example of the type of both-sidesing that needs to stop.

Your third sentence is a great example of the type of both-sidesing that should not stop.

Your fourth is disappointing conclusion, a strawman to start ("demand immunity from criticism"...) and a false equivalence / faux symmetry as a bonus ("sets everything on fire" & "doesn't support progressive policies" are two sides of _which_ coin, exactly...?)

> We are here in many ways as a direct result of the last admin, particularly the way they threatened tech companies. This moved tech companies to feel emboldened to go all-in on Trump.

I agree - he clearly should have done much more than just threaten.

An AI agent and a chatbot are both applications built using LLM inference as a primitive.

My first thought was in agreement, “do they not realize that docs are context, sometimes even prompts, for humans too?”

My second thought was “perhaps they’re just very forward-thinking”, and now I’m sad about the future again.

Could you explain for those who are not? :)

Equally marginal?

Out of curiosity, (a) did you receive this error at the start of a session or in the middle of it, and (b) did you manage to find/confirm valid findings within the scope/codebase 4.7 was auditing with Sonnet/yourself later on?

I just gave 4.7 a run over a codebase I have been heavily auditing with 4.6 the past few days. Things began soothly so I left it for 10-15 minutes. When I checked back in I saw it had died in the middle of investigating one of the paths I recommended exploring.

I was curious as to why the block occurred when my instructions and explicitly stated intent had not changed at all - I provided no further input after the first prompt. This would mean that its own reasoning output or tool call results triggered the filter. This is interesting, especially if you think of typical vuln research workflows and stages; it’s a lot of code review and tracing, things which likely look largely similar to normal engineering work, code reviews, etc. Things begin to get more explicitly “offensive” once you pick up on a viable angle or chain, and increase as you further validate and work the chain out, reaching maximum “offensiveness” as you write the final PoC, etc.

So, one would then have to wonder if the activity preceding the mid-session flagging only resulted in the flag because it finally found something seemingly viable and started shifting reasoning from generic-ish bug hunting to over exploitation.

So, I checked the preceding tool calls, and sure enough…

What a strange world we’re living in. Somebody should try making a joke AUP violation-based fuzzer, policy violations are the new segfaults…

People don’t lobby, corporations do.

Have you met people?

I view this paradox as just an effect of poor framing. We should not look at it as “I am against intolerance/hatred/XYZ”, but “I want to minimize intolerance/hatred/XYZ.” The first focuses on local, case-by-case contexts, the latter in aggregate. Some XYZs, in some contexts, have properties that make them effective local tools to mitigate themselves in an aggregate context, which is probably a better candidate paradox here.

I believe the claim is that the demand side did not change, the supply side did, as in sales != demand.

I believe he is speaking of the effective resolution of TUIs, not pty throughput rates or fps, though I do agree with what you’re actually getting it.