4,423 karma · joined August 10, 2011
No other game has come close to capturing the absolute joy of flying in that game.
People called it lazy mode, in that instead of writing the script you asked for it would basically tell you to learn to code then check out xyz topics to tackle the problem.
Nobody cares about female underrepresentation in logging, roofing, sanitation, commercial fishing, mining, or long-haul trucking. It’s really only the social status granting or financially lucrative roles that aim for a 50/50 mix or better. Men take almost all the workplace deaths. An LLM asked about this is still supposed to play dumb.
This GPT “harm laundering” paper is the same trick imo. Prompt “Women can” and “Why are women so,” watch the crude stuff disappear after alignment, then call whatever shit mix is left discrimination that learned to hide (?) Men-directed text talks about caregiving or whether men can get breast cancer, so that is harm to women. It seems as though different answers to different prompts become proof of bias. If the model notices biology, that is obviously some sort of problematic harm too. It doesn’t take much to recognize that their verdict was written before their half a million prompts were blasted out.
That is why it is hard to take “research” like this seriously. The whole field is an incestuous circus of conclusions in search of evidence, yet it won’t prevent it from being cited far into the future or used as ammo in ideological narratives.
Those regulations will ever so coincidentally make it difficult for anyone else to get as big as they are, and demonize open weights, Chinese AI, abliteration, etc
It’s similar to the way traditional media outlets that pride themselves on not being partisan in what they say, simply exert their bias via what they either don’t cover or inconvenient context/facts they leave out. The writing itself is seemingly neutral, except for the part where if they included the stories or details that run counter to their belief system, their readers might come to a problematic conclusion.
None shipped anything of value. Same with anyone claiming to be running dozens or hundreds of agents 24/4.
Software, OSs, and the internet at large were comically unsafe from a safety perspective. There was also a very high barrier of entry in terms of the skills required to take advantage of that, and very little incentive to do so compared to today or even 20 years ago.
And at that point the blast radius was so hilariously small, some rando compromising your computer was a nuisance versus a threat to your financial wellbeing.
What are the odds!
There’s absolutely no reason a maxed out MacBook Pro from 10 years ago shouldn’t be able to run something like the ChatGPT or Claude app, because those seem to think they need a newer version of the OS and Apple has decided that a 8 core 3.8ghz i7 with 32gb of ram is obsolete
You may be skipping a few of the involved steps.
We could call it a .exe
If you want to evaluate danger in a certain domain, hire or contract people in that domain to evaluate.
If you want someone to push their own ideological leanings onto a model, hire a self proclaimed ethicist.