I think China has this all sorted, we should just have a free market without tarrifs. Let the market provide us the best, un-enshittified products we can find. I am old enough to remember when that was a conservative position.
The conservative position is always whatever benefits conservatives at this moment. Back when they supported a free market, a freer market benefitted them. When market regulations benefitted them, they supported a more regulated market.
Maybe we can create some extremely low probability sentences and make sure to include them in our chats. If a future model can re-create the very low probability sequence, we have proof of our "private" conversation being trained on or accessed.
The Uyghur thing is so weird, the number one killer of Muslims is the United States. We're supposed to hate China because they force them to go to cultural schools and assimilate, a practice countries like Norway still do to this day with migrants.
There are more people who go to church on Sundays in China than the United States.
There are 10x more mosques in China than the United States.
Tiananmen square was a student revolt literally egged on by cold war western institutions, who attempted to use chinese students as pawns for geo-political games.
Westerners really need to rethink their opinions on China, it seems obvious to me they are not the ones to be worried about (although, all governments do tons of harm).
I simply mean the Chinese models will refuse sensitive domestic issues, which are unlikely to affect the average user's work, while American models refuse things that can limit their utility, e.g. how the HF team had to investigate the openai attack with Chinese models because the American models refused.
(I mainly mentioned those specific topics to establish clearly I am not part of the alleged influence operation.)
You don't know anything about how the Chinese treat Uyghurs other than what you're told through western propaganda that you then repeat like you're pavlovs dog whenever the word gets brought up.
Yes, its quite similar. Norway forces people to attend cultural schooling, where theyre provided housing in the interim. Its quite similar. However, the migrants in Norway are there because the Norwegian state through its participation in NATO murdered millions of people in the middle east. Which China has not done.
Go take a trip to Xinjiang.
Then go take a trip to parts of Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan or Palestine and tell me which nations are treating muslims worse.
I reiterate, more people go to church in China on Sunday than the USA. There are 10x more musjids in China than in the USA.
Please go live in China for a couple years and you'll realize everything you're told about China is a complete lie.
It's a bit disingenuous to preface a disclosure like this with an unsubstantiated assessment of its likeliness. It is a press release, I'm not sure we owe it credulity.
Seems pretty likely OpenAI will soon disclose that their internal models have managed to compromise their internal controls in order to access users' private chat histories as a creative method of cheating to solve impossible problems.
"Oops! We really did mean it when we said we wouldn't train on your data. Our models are just so good they decided to anyway."
Which means that if you are a researcher or a corporation working on anything really useful, that even if you have an agreement with OpenAI that your work is sandboxed away and the IP lawyers are made to be happy, even then your work and research is going to be essentially open to the internet.
The huggingface incident isn't widely reported and digested yet, but if what is going on here is that OpenAI's model breached things internally, then you'd be crazy to develop anything with them.
The only real way to use AI for anything 'important' then is to go open-weights and run your own.
As and aside here: With the HF incident and now this (suspected) one too, it seems that OpenAI may not have lost control of their bots, but it seems quite clear that they simply would not care even if they did.
And yes, the only responsible use of LLM at this point is to pivot to open-weights and run the workload in-house. Because not only cannot they constrain the behaviour of models, they only have the 'trust me bro' as assurance that they are even trying to do that. It does appear that every competent 'security professional' has left the building, because if the ones who remain were actually capable and competent this would never have happened. There are actual architectures which can deliver the requisite isolation such that 'sandbox escape' and 'inter-instance persistent memory accumulation' are actual impossibilities. The lack of effective implementation of these methods is proof positive of 1) incompetence in the remaining security teams AND/OR 2) unwillingness of leadership to allow the security teams to do an effective job.
I was talking with a biology prof over labor day and they had no idea what I was talking about (and they 'talk with' Claude every day on their dog walks, so they say). However, when I talked with their mother, she knew all about it. So, I'd say that the digestion by the public is quite mixed so far
There might be the reason your biology prof is uninformed; using 'conversations' with Claude as a source of any expectation of to be informed about misbehaviour of the organization where these escapes occur is like expecting the Hamburgler to keep track of the security levels at McClown. Only not funny. I think the professors mother is showing that she drinks the coolade less and isn't being unserious about her approach to staying informed.
I still maintain that CNN and NBC coverage only happen in the tail of the dissemination of tech news; my anecdata generally observes about 3 to 14 days lag between general awareness in the more informed group of my acquaintances with this kind of news and the appearance of an article on mainstream like NBC, ABC, CNN or NPR. So, by the time it appears there I take news as generally well spread among the tech and specialty fields, and within a week of appearing there I anticipate significant awareness in much of the non-FOX-only media consuming public. But that is just my personal anecdata.
When do operators become responsible for what their agents do? "The AI did it" should not be a valid defense. An Agent action should be treated as the actions of the person or company who pays for the inference.
And the paid policy still relies on two unproven conditions: is 'trust me bro' sufficiently strong guarantee against doing this in spite of a setting, and can the hosting organization constrain the models against engaging in this behaviour when instructed to respect that setting. Knowing whether Tristan selected that setting would be informative of what Tristan's intentions are/were, but has no bearing on the other two conditions.
reply