> It was from GPT-2

Prior to the released of GPT-5, Sam said he was scared of it and compared it to the Manhattan Project.

Thank you. People are currently getting a hard-on claiming Anthropic are the 'good guys' and don't stop to actually look around and see what is going on and how both companies got here.

This is pretty much correct, but Mustafa Suleyman has probably been doing it longer.

Not just part of the developers, but rather "led the development of large language models like GPT-2 and GPT-3" as per his website.

https://darioamodei.com/

The flood of reports that open source projects like curl, Linux and Chromium are getting are presumably due to public models like Open 4.6 that released earlier this year, and not models with limited availability.

How many months till they release a better model than mythos to general audience?

Gpt 2 wasn't released fully because OpenAI deemed it too dangerous, rings a bell? https://openai.com/index/better-language-models/#sample1

Those vulnerabilities were found by open models as well.

> judging by the flood of vulnerability reports seen by e.g. Daniel Stenberg

Maybe I've missed anything, but what Stenberg been complaining about so far been the wave of sloppy reports, seemingly reported by/mainly by AIs. Has that ratio somehow changed recently to mainly be good reports with real vulnerabilities?

It didn't, but the advent of spellcheck and autocorrect has made everyone completely give up on proper grammar or word selection as long as no squiggly line appears.

Exactly the same way that the `cancelled` of my youth became `canceled`. By being misspelled so often that the misspelling won.

In this case, it's not clear who wins yet — "lose" may loose, or mount a comeback, resulting in "loose" being the one to lose.

Because your pronounce them backwards.

"Loose" is a short word that ends sharply, but "lose" is a long word that slowly peters out.

They should be the other way around imo.

I try to let it go, but this is my pet peeve.

I always assume not everyone is an English speaker and let it go.

I’m guessing most cases of loose/lose switch happen when English isn’t someone’s first language.

It doesn't make sense to have "lose" pronounced as it is. We have rose, pose, dose, nose all pronounced with ō. And then you have lose pronounced as loo͞z. It feels natural to put two O's in there when you write it.

people are from many places

It's fine, nothing to see. Just focus on the intended meaning not the underlying delivery. Mere words don't really impact communication. Right?

For some reason I thought you were doing a setup for a joke...

"The President of the US, the Secretary of Defense, Iranian Prime Minister walk into a bar..."

And the absolute last group the government would ever approve access to would be "We the People".

I know it's not realistic at this point, but I really hope the Chinese labs will release models that run local and are on par with the abilities of frontier models. That is, I hope the idea of frontier models goes away. Because if not, what we're looking at is a seriously bleak outlook with respect to economic freedom for anyone outside the 0.1%. We may even be looking at out and out lack of economic viability for vast segments of the population.

That's not true, they did do obfuscation but the main sneaky thing they did was to make hackers think that they had found all of the checks, and then hide checks that would only trigger half way through the game. That kind of obfuscation is also not relevant to security vulnerabilities.

AI is already superhuman at reading and understanding assembly and decompilation output, especially for obfuscated binaries. I have tried giving the same binary with and without heavy control flow obfuscation to the same model, and it was able to understand the obfuscated one just fine.

In American law, companies have the choice of whether or not to do business with the government, outside of a few corner cases. There’s a process for forcing them, but it can’t just be because the leader says so.

In this particular case Anthropic had a contract stating what the military could and could not use their models for. The military broke that contract. Anthropic declined to sign a revised one.

This is within their rights, and more to the point, the government should absolutely not be allowed to unilaterally alter contracts they’ve already signed!

Predictability is the whole point. Undermining it is how you destroy your own economy.

> the essence of government is autocratic sovereignty

*was

Democracy was and is radical for putting the common people in charge of the government. The right to petition for redress of grievances is literally in the first amendment. Government is a social contract, enforced with state violence on one end and mob violence on the other.

If you want to return to autocratic rule, I hear North Korea is lovely this time of year.

If Alexander or any of his usurping ancestors has a problem then he can go ride a horse over a molehill. Oh, what, is that line a bit too soon? Tandem Triumphans!

I agree, I know some people hate the surveillance stuff, but unfortunately we only hear the bad mostly of what it does, we never hear the actual good impact some of these agencies do. I wish they'd release some sort of annual report, but how do you do that without telling your enemies that people are "trying" or being "caught" doing things. It's a pain in the butt.

There are truly evil people in this world, way worse than we probably realize. Our military is not perfect, our country is not perfect, no country or military is, but we generally do our very best to do what is right historically speaking. It's hard to see that if you get lost in the politics of things.