What happens when you ask it to play chess against you if the chess game has an API? Are you measuring chess or multi-tasking skill?
Also what harness? If you’re using a general harness of course it’s going to try and give you commentary.
I say this not because I’m an LLM shill but because false equivalence is all over the place in the space and maybe it’s a fine heuristic for you but probably not a real outcome when it comes to the capability of LLMs.
Why does a 6 year old not need any of these guardrails?
Frontier model’s failure modes are a direct refutation of claims that we’ve reached (or will soon reach) the artificial general intelligence. We may have reached an artificial general intelligence, but there may be more complexity to this than even AI thought leaders are talking / influencing about.
Maybe not all AGIs have a path to digital singularity. Maybe our current era of intelligence modeling has fundamental flaws and we are in a local minimum of the artificial intelligence space.
To note, I would bet with a good amount of certainty that we have enough compute power and automation to DDOS the internet out of existence with botnets. That doesn’t make the frontier models intelligent, that just makes their handlers reckless.
Hm? Drawing the next move's game state based on the current one is a very simple task. Chess academies are probably full of six-year-olds who could do this.
For adults getting into playing tournament chess, losing to some kid barely tall enough to reach the board is a rite of passage.
Well, would a dissected frontal lobe in and of itself be intelligence?
I think the same goes for LLMs, they may be a core part of an LLM harness, but you may still need a couple other components (e.g. it may itself write itself a deterministic function to validate steps).
In and of itself intelligence is an ill-defined and badly understood concept.
You're pointing out that the goalposts are not fixed in the problem statement above, and gp's interpretation is not the most generous possible. But as the interpretations get more generous, the claim becomes more and more absurd. Maybe a properly-harnessed model would download the most advanced chess engine and query it to find the best move in each position, but that's not really demonstrating the model's intelligence anymore.
If I’m Canada I look for a trade agreement rather than associate membership - no reason to put your eggs in one basket.
As an American, I continue to be sad and tired that our current president is somehow allowed to unilaterally destroy a very successful and thriving trade partner via arbitrary tariffs that have already been ruled illegal and while it doesn’t make a damned bit of difference I’m sorry about it.
Don't be. Trump is a necessary and welcome wake up call. We Canadians needed Trump's shock of reality.
The truth is that, for more than a century, the main trait of being Canadian was simply not being American and not trusting Americans.
In 1775 George Washington ordered the invasion of southern Quebec and we resisted. After the American revolution we received an huge influx of Loyalists, the Americans that didn't want to be part of the U.S.; we say the American Revolution created 2 countries: yours and ours. In 1812 Americans raised war against us, as a continuation of the Napoleonic wars. Although we were still a British colony, we fought back, invaded Washington DC and set the White House on fire. In 1890, the McKinley Tariffs were meant to subjugate us, the same way Trump wants to do now [1]. They backfired, made us stronger.
But in the 80's the Reagan-Mulroney trade agreement fooled us. We became too reliant, friendly and confident to the Americans. It was a dangerous illusion. The Comanche, Apache and Navajo have learned too late that you can't trust Americans. Luckily for us, Trump reminded us that lesson on time, before it would be too late.
> The Comanche, Apache and Navajo have learned too late that you can't trust Americans
The Haudenosaunee Confederacy probably learned this the strongest. And more even than the Loyalists help build this country. Or I'm more conscious of this as I live in a place where Joseph Brant's (Thayendanegea) name is all over the place.
But they -- and Britain's other indigenous "allies" in the US interior -- also learned the hard way that the British couldn't be trusted either. The Treaty of Ghent ended the war of 1812 but on terms that let the Americans commit genocide against the native populations to the west of them ; which the British were formerly allied with.
And while the Iroquois were granted all extensive lands along the Grand river as reward for helping fight the Americans in 1784 (Haldimand proclamation) -- they subsequently had that chipped away at for generations and it's just a tiny postage stamp of what it used to be.
> The Treaty of Ghent ended the war of 1812 but on terms that let the Americans commit genocide against the native populations to the west of them
The British tried to create a native "buffer" zone. The Americans refused, and the British were ultimately in no position to make this happen. Instead they implemented article IX that demanded that the US return all entitlements, possessions, lands, and so on to natives as they were in 1811. The US agreed.
And then ignored it. The British were in no position to "let" or "prohibit" anything within the US or its territories.
> they subsequently had that chipped away at for generations and it's just a tiny postage stamp of what it used to be.
They literally sold it off, for their own benefit, as a free peoples with agency. There is extraordinary little controversy about this. And FWIW, the British bought that land from another tribe, and then moved a tribe -- one that had slaves, btw, and Joseph Brant was a notorious slaver -- in basically as refugees.
There are tiny areas where there is a contention that whatever band leader was in charge was illegitimate, but the vast majority of the transactions are settled historic record that absolutely no one has under doubt. A group of people had a lot of land and not much to do with it, so when other groups made offers for it they were onboard.
"Chipped away" is quite a hilarious misrepresentation of this. It actually sounds comically racist, like you're the "good guy" who is here to tell them that what they did with their own stuff was wrong.
It's interesting how patronizing both your points are. The British were both responsible for American actions, and then in the future were responsible for Mohawk actions. All lesser peoples have no agency or self-control, and need to be limited and directed by the apparently superior, all-knowing British.
My ancestors here in Ontario owned large tracts of land. Over centuries they sold it off. "Chipped away". No good guys, right? Give me back my land. The British should have stopped them from selling, because surely hundreds of years later it might be worth more?
I just happen to have an extra Pi and an e-ink display sitting around and I LOVE this idea. Going to try it on my screened in porch - we typically get 10-20 Merlin detections on a decent day so this could be fun!
It might have helped draw out the layoff process, potentially. Still not convinced unions would optimize overall outcomes for employees _while_ employed.
Maybe a better conversation to have as we keep moving through this AI Engineering era and a bunch of new companies are created. If you are considering founding a company, would you start it as a union shop? If not, why?
Founders are management, unions protect employees from management and shareholders. If you can build without employees, go for it.
Investors want to get wealthy, founders want to get wealthy, employees are just fuel for that machine. The examples are robust of how startup employees make out the vast majority of the time.
Union support is at record highs, there will always people who think they can do better without, best to not argue with folks who ignore data and stats. Their belief system won’t be swayed with logic and reason.
(a potential solution to this is for unions to turn into cooperatives and accelerators over time; they could build their own investment funds with their pensions an investor in their portfolio companies, if Bending Spoons was a union cooperative if you will, for example)
Replying again to say: A union isn't the real objective. Greater share of profits and more democracy in the workplace is. So maybe that's union-shaped or maybe something else.
> We are grateful for your dedication, hard work, and the impact you have made during your time with us.
Why do companies bother with this horse excrement? Does a sentence like this make anyone feel better?
Most times, I wish they'd just send the honest truth. "Hey, we screwed up. We over-hired and ran out of funds so we had to let you go to make payroll" or "Our M&A strategists overpaid for an over-leveraged company and now we have to figure out how to pay down the debt. Your position was cut as a result."
Obviously corporations owe nothing to nobody (apparently) but I'd love it if the patronizing language stopped.
There have been a couple of cases of honesty in tech layoffs in the last couple where the employer specifically said that the layoffs were for performance which added insult to injury to the people laid off in that round and damaged their future hiring prospects, e.g. https://www.fastcompany.com/91262263/meta-rebranded-performa.... I'd rather not have the honesty in that case; that's a terrible thing to do to people.
Was that really honesty? I'm sure some who were caught in the layoff were truly underperforming, but everyone has peaks and valleys in their output quality over the years, and tons of performance reviews are purely political (i.e. does your manager like you).
It doesn't read so much like "honesty" to me as it does arrogance and spite (which, to be fair, aligns with everything I've heard about their corporate culture). Fundamentally, responsibility for layoffs is always on the shoulders of corporate leadership; regardless of individual employee performance, each of them was vetted extensively and ultimately hired by Meta; the company could have elected to work with them to bring performance up to a higher standard (if you believe their claim that it wasn't), but instead they chose to amputate them en-masse.
It's not "honest" to punish and blame a huge swath of your workforce in a single stroke for your hiring and management mis-steps, it's cowardly and lazy.
They have the same psychology the leaders of communist states had. It's a constant litany of self-congratulation and tone-deafness that has no connection to reality.
Why single out communist leaders? Seems more related to authoritarian leaders, of which communist leaders were just a small subset.
Heck our current admin can’t do any wrong in their own eyes, every thing is perfect and winning including the morass in the Middle East that was arbitrarily started on whim and resulted in economic chaos. Or the trade war with Canada.
Or Biden, he couldn’t do any wrong in his own eyes and that led to the current situation.
This would be totally doable except for a couple of recent changes during the DOGE take-over where federal agencies mandated communication on X as their primary means.
This is clearly illegal as all comms need to be posted in different accessible places as well as the federal register - but that never stopped anybody in this administration from a bit of grifting to drive users to their own platform.
I’m bummed about this service being taken down. I will now just not be able to see updates from folks in the AI field that choose to post there and I’ll rely on aggregators instead.
Not a kid - I wish. My point was that (admittedly some not all) societies if faced with a loss of a major utility and supply chains that were dependent on would start to devolve pretty quickly into chaos.
That to me is the greater threat than annihilation due to autonomous weapons, etc.
This is the correct approach. I think we can do both things - try to add some controls while also ensuring it’s not a complete giveaway to entrenched interests and investors.
The problem with that hope and approach is regulatory capture. Big money is now the only thing that apparently matters in shaping policy, and changing that will require a lot of very sweeping vote and policy changes that may not ever have the momentum to succeed.
Also what harness? If you’re using a general harness of course it’s going to try and give you commentary.
I say this not because I’m an LLM shill but because false equivalence is all over the place in the space and maybe it’s a fine heuristic for you but probably not a real outcome when it comes to the capability of LLMs.
reply