The author didn't argue that you should never use radians, or tau. Just that for some use cases there is an alternative that is simpler using turns. Your argument can be true and his proposal can also be true, it just depends what your use case looks like.
Here is an excerpt from the system prompt for UltraCode (Same for Fable,Opus,Sonnet):
"Ultracode. When a system-reminder confirms ultracode is on, that opt-in is standing: author and run a workflow for every substantive task by default. The goal is the most exhaustive, correct answer you can produce — token cost is not a constraint."
Maybe I'm not understanding this, but how is it that you can know enough about the data to process it without undermining the fundamental concept of encryption? Isn't encrypted data supposed to be just random noise without the key? The more you know about the underlying data the easier it gets to decrypt? Does this mean someone can just steal your encrypted data and use that to steal your identity without even needing to decrypt it anymore?
you can produce a correct result without knowing what that result means as long as the person you then provide that result to can decrypt it. So the way it works is the server does the job on data it can't read, sends an answer to the device, the device decrypts it.
It's very useful for things like healthcare data for example but also for products like "home assistants", and it's one of the use cases that the team hiring internally was giving in their job req. I tried to apply too but didn't get it unfortunately, this was a very interesting product to work on imho, congrats to whoever got my job :)
the basic encryption scheme used here is fairly straightforward actually, at least the symmetric encryption version. Let s be a uniformly random, 512-dimensional u32 vector. To encrypt a message m (say a 512-dimensional bit vector for simplicity), you
1. generate a 512 x 512 random (u32) matrix A, and
2. generate a 512-dimensional rounded (to the nearest integer) Gaussian, say of standard deviation 10, e.
The ciphertext is then [A, b :=As + e + 2^8 m].
To decrypt, you compute b - As to recover 2^8 m + e. You can then recover m, as e << 2^8 with high probability.
Anyway, if you have two of these ciphertexts, you can sum them together to get
[A1 + A2, (A1 + A2)s + (e1 + e2) + 2^8 (m1 + m2)]
this decrypts to m1 + m2, so you can recover homomorphic sums (or scalings by small integers).
Multiplication is more complex, so I won't get into it here. But the high level from the above example is that you could have someone compute arbitrary linear functions of your data without them knowing what your data is.
only temporarily, and only for multiplication. At a very high level, the idea is that you view C := [A, b] as satisfying
CS = 2^8 m + e
here, S = [-s, 1] is a padded version of the initial secret. So recast everything as a linear equation (matrix) equation
CS = 2^8m + e
Without getting into too much details, one can define a "product" * such that
(CC)(SS) = (2^8m + e)(2^8m + e)
This becomes a "degree 2" equation. Mildly faking the details for simplicity, one can expand it out not in terms of A, b, but in terms of three components A, b, c, where c is the "degree 2" component. So here things have inflated. But there is also a technique to shrink this back down to a linear equation.
This shrinking process requires some auxiliary data, namely an encryption of SS under S. it is not the problematic part of HE though. Instead, data movement (say a circular rotation by k indices) also requires some "fixing up", though here involving an encryption of rot^i(S) under S.
This is more problematic, as there are many different rotations (often on the order of thousands), and you naively need a piece of auxiliary data for each of them (vs one for multiplication). There are ways to shrink the required number of keys, but in general they're the "heavyweight" part of FHE.
this isnt about the progress of FHE, this is about models hiding reasoning traces (i.e. "thinking") from their paying customers because they dont want them knowing how question A got to answer B.
The arrest/conviction generally follow the pulled over stopped rates. It's pretty hard to arrest/convict people you aren't stopping. These types of biases and stereo types are often pervasive within certain groups of people, including law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, and often the subset of the local community in power. If you've ever been to court (even traffic court) you'll find the word of the officer is given tremendous weight, while the word of the defendant is almost totally marginalized (no matter what your race). Even though you are "presumed innocent", the defendant has a natural incentive to lie and the officer presumably doesn't.
To top that off there is almost no "suitable oversight" of any police departments in the US of any kind, let alone by the community.
There really are no simple solutions to this, even places not plagued by bigotry and racism have major structural power problems for the average citizen.
I didn't say this was a solution or that the problem has a simple solution, but pretty much any solution needs to start with community involvement and community oversight seems a useful component to consider.
People believe a lot of things, especially when the other side has power. The point is that people complain about how the power is used by the other side. When power switches sides, they don't roll that power back. They pretty much always leave it in place.
no one, including me, actually believes in democracy. its just an eternal fight between the libertarian and the authoritarian. pick your side and fight as you can. thanks for disabusing me of my illusions, you know me better than I know myself.
you can mock my beliefs, you can try to convince how misguided they are, but its really outside the minimum rules of discourse to tell me what I actually believe
Both can be true, because the experience depends on the skill of the user. The article the other day here on HN that LLMs reward skill is my exact experience. If you are are good at what you are trying to use it for they can be a skill amplifier, and they are definitely getting much better rapidly for the work I do with them. At the same time people are complaining that they are getting dumber. Saying that both can't be true ignores the skill requirement to use them and the completely different perspectives of people using them.
Even if both aren't true, your evidence was people saying two opposing things. The truth (if there is a single objective truth on a given thing) has little bearing on whether or not different people agree on it.
> At the same time people are complaining that they are getting dumber.
I think this is due to rapidly rising expectations.
When LLMs first show they can do some new thing, we're excited at first. Then, we quickly start taking it for granted, and get upset whenever the LLM fails.
Just three years ago, LLMs could barely hold a conversation. Now, they're writing entire code bases and solving famous mathematical conjectures, but we still focus on whatever they can't do.
You could say the same when applied to games with high RNG and chance, such as Slay the Spire 2, and yet those with real skill do perform far better than those without. Those with skill can clear the highest difficulties more often than those with lower skill.
Something being "non-deterministic" is orthogonal to whether or not skill plays a role.
not equal, but probabisticly better. Best example: give the agent a tight spec and it will perform better compared with a spec that leaves room for interpretation. This is true for all models, more or less. (purely anecdotal of course)
It's an interesting point, but this is more like we are building a giant autonomous canon, that escaped the lab, the testing range, defeated state of the art and serious security protocols, and then blew a hole in the neighbors house.
Our legal and philosophical perspectives are deeply rooted in humans being the actors. Doing that in a residential home is unforgiveable. Doing it responsibly on a military range is expected. The autonomous agent escaping that containment then taking that danger somewhere unexpected and unprepared is something none of us or our legal systems are truly prepared to grapple with yet. Something which I think will require a reckoning sooner rather than later.
I don't think it's really that new, legally. Cows, dogs, and whatever have been escaping from people's land and damaging their neighbor's land for thousands of years. Cases like that get decided on standards of negligence, recklessness, or strict liability. There's still a lot of mileage left in those concepts.
Yes, the human actors in your scenario were the ones who built the autonomous cannon and turned it on while knowing that 1) a good neighbor does not destroy their neighbor’s property 2) cannons can destroy property.
Also OpenAI specifically turned off their own cybersecurity guardrails to run this experiment. In other words it was able to escape the lab specifically because they turned them off. A human made the choice to turn off the guardrails.
Ok they turn off the guardrails on a system in testing. The model escapes and causes 10 trillion in damage. What does liability even mean in that case? You have an autonomous system that's escaped your control and is wrecking havoc. And while you can throw people in jail it doesnt do a damned thing about solving the situation.
When someone from Russia hacks your server you say "well, fuck, I messed up" because the law in most places cannot do crap.
When a self spreading AI model virus hacks your instance and spends $50,000 in tokens you say "well fuck" because there is no one to arrest. And even if they catch someone you will never be made whole because it's likely caused a few billion in damages and charges by that point.
Right now the problem would be surmountable as there are few data centers that can run it, but give it a few years and a model could persist on the internet nearly forever much like many viruses do now.
And old couple in California had a tire go flat and the sparks from it caused a over a billion dollars in damages. Are you going to publicly execute them? Spit up the 100 dollars they have collectively to make the 10,000 damaged people whole?
The legal system is nearly useless when a person/system can cause damages many of orders of magnitude larger than their assets. Society tends to engineer itself to prevent these things from happening in the first place.
reply