| ▲ | dan_q 11 hours ago | |||||||||||||
> But the event itself only seems possible because they failed to properly monitor and isolate the environment in the first place. OpenAI is clearly run by dummies and subpar engineering talent. > The model is obviously impressive Speak for yourself. | ||||||||||||||
| ▲ | Meleagris 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||||||||
I don’t believe for a second that they lack the engineering talent. It’s just another example of a company demonstrating shamelessness in the pursuit of growth, in an industry where consequences do not exist. | ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| ▲ | moron4hire 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||||||||
Speaking of that "obviously impressive" line, I'm getting really tired of something like that line seemingly needing to be included by anyone doing any criticism of agentic systems. The most common form of it is "these models are obviously useful" midway through a bunch of arguments about environment, data provenance, skill atrophy, or even correctness issues. It's just really weird. Why does everyone feel the need to equivocate? "I worry about genocide and the environmental impact of radiation from nuclear bombs. Obviously, they are very useful for annihilating entire cities, certainly. But are we really atrophying our ability to invade with infantry?" I want to tell these people to just cut it out. It's demeaning to their own position. | ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||