throwaway27448

> If a risk is covered in sci-fi, people will say "that's just sci-fi", and proceed to not worry about it.

"just" is doing a lot of work here. If you can't cohere the 'risk' with reality, it truly is just sci-fi.

This seems traceable back to GIGO. If you don't understand the software you're using, don't use it.

What scares me are the people who think that this software is the equivalent of an perfectly-smart elf in a box and use it blindly.

It's still not a bad idea to reduce attack surface. A VM is much easier to harden than a kernel.

What's stopping them from using claude today? What could anyone possibly do to stop them from using open models? This line of thought seems like corporate/political/pr pandering more than a meaningful concern.

> When access to AI gives you abilities you cannot use responsibly

I don't think this is realistically a problem at all. It just makes certain types of research cheaper and less time-consuming. And, again, this is also a problem with the american services.

Intelligence was never the bottleneck tho

I think the unethical things are happening already with boutique firms. I admit I don't get the concern.

> No plants growing everywhere completely out of control and invading perimeters they aren't supposed to be in. No cracked pavement that's just a rainfall away from being replaced with potholes.

Fwiw this would certainly strike me as soulless. Haven't you ever seen pleasantville or don't worry darling? "Soul" to my ear implies imperfection.

What's the real and pragmatic use for referring to an llm as a person? How many people are roleplaying with their chatbot? I honestly have no clue.

This is typically how quality native ports work.

Sure but this is true regardless of the model. Either it found a bug or it didn't—who cares about the intermediary steps or tools used so long as the reporter can reproduce it?

Why would the difference matter? A bug report is valid or it isn't.

Crowdsourcing tracking of government vehicles might prompt a more reasonable reaction from politicians.

From everything i've seen it seems to have the opposite tone and ethos as biblical sodom & gomorrah—it's oriented around welcoming strangers and not abusing them. Even being kicked out would be preferable.

> I would describe it as literally sodom on earth.

This would be extremely disturbing given the extreme extent to which people rely on the hospitality of others, as I understand it. I hope you mean it in a sense of indulgent degeneracy rather than in the biblical sense.

I think this is just roman society lol

"The Dawn of Everything"'s interpretation of this is that we only relied on (sedentary) agriculture when we were forced to because of climate change, overpopulation, or threat of violence from other local peoples, so there are several thousand years between evidence of capability and necessity.

> Burial is the standard way

(Assuming you mean the obvious and immediate semantics of digging a hole and placing the corpse within it...)

It may be now, but there are many ways to provide corpse disposal without risking health. Sky and tree burials are clear evidence of other corpse disposal methods. I imagine cremation is pretty obvious to humans too.

Some people even exhume the bodies and perform rituals with it. I find this nauseous but it wouldn't be a thing if societies were being eliminated from its effects.

Maybe. I haven't heard anything impressive from the bio side of my social network, nor can I see anything from the computational side (including my own understanding). Thankfully it'll be pretty obvious if they find something interesting.

The point of naming it a "skull cult" is really just pointing out people found human remains to be important—something largely true today too, and hardly more romantic than our own understanding of burial.

Estimating "common" is quite difficult, but given that there are pre-colonial aboriginal australian burial sites, we can estimate that it either can be traced to Africa or is sufficiently common to not be surprising. There is even evidence (not proof) of neanderthal burial rituals, fwiw.

Chip manufacturing intrinsically comes with one hell of a moat. There's not much parallel in software.

No, I was suggesting that we should not downvote people celebrating that they learned something. Learning things is certainly most of why I am here.

But, like much of the internet, people here still use it as a "dislike" button, which is frustrating.

Their cyber security seems to be a much more materially interesting (and likely profitable) business than "intelligence". Unfortunately they've created a sort of mutually-assured-destruction racket where they take payments from both "sides" of any secured boundary.

I'm not holding my breath for the biology side of things, but I suppose it's possible they find interesting things.

Whoever downvoted this has no love of curiosity and doesn't belong here.

They tend to be the one that define it. What you consider damage is their (our, frankly) bread and butter.

> I want them to show me that they are not wasting/splurging it.

Why don't you apply this same attitude to for-profit organizations, which are by definition wasting your money?

This is just idle curiousity—non-profits play a very odd role in our society, and I don't generally give to any of them in lieu of direct donations. Obviously that doesn't scale....

Not to mention most of those "advanced query filters" simply aren't functional anymore.

> I mean, look at the query. To the author, it was an attempt to source information. Yet the author also realised that the reader would need context to understand why Google's response was weird in their mind. What they failed to do was give context to Google, so the LLM interpreted it as asking for social advice.

Is there any evidence that there is an informal (llm) parallel to keyword search? At least with keywords it's analyzable what query you might use to find a given document. How can we replicate this with LLMs? Why would google care if the average user doesn't?

> Obviously the "did not share info therefore guilty" mantra is somewhat true for charities.

I'm not following. Can you explain?