Hahaha. He's a comedian now.

Why not make it have equal corners. This forced rounded edges is insane. The lack of symmetry is absolutely bad design

I am self delusional enough to think I could have gotten a blue button if I could have typed the prompt. But scared enough to realize I’ve lived this and spent months refactoring these exact problems.

Hold on let me go commit code without reviewing.

What, you didn’t smoke test before AI? I mean did you even really code then? :)

This is the load-bearing question.

And it deserves an honest answer.

The answer is genuinely yours

And that changes the game. Again.

Worth sitting with.

a caveat worth mentioning:

Asking the question in the right way may be 99% of the work. And the fact that openAI is effectively snooping on users and then outspending them to announce a break through is just gross.

Is it really? If I ask my swarm of agents to read about every relevant stuff about NS problem online might me more than what any researcher can prompt the machine these days.

LLMs pattern match based on the prompt. Go ask for medical with my tummy hurts and patient presents with intestinal cramps and see how asking a question as an expert changes the interaction

Go win a Millenium prize then.

I am building a federated hosting platform that I plan to opensource for this exact reason for our company and similar users. I would love to talk to these teams (we are a small team at Duke and a health care company).

The fact that anyone has to make that trade off with that through process shows a company and culture that is untrustworthy. OpenAI isnt open, isnt a non-profit, isnt for the benefit of humanity, and isnt even for the benefit of users at this point, its users are vassals providing training data so their models can reach ASI first.

I am going all in on sovereign ai even if its worse, these companies have shown they not only dont deserve trust but are actively stealing past and present intellectual property from humanity and users.

Want anyone at Harvards personal info?

How do you have that?

I dont know they trust me because they are stupid.

The fact that this conversation is public and anyone uses meta garbage is what's wrong with so many things

People generally reply to this with "He was making a point. He wasn't saying he couldn't be trusted, he was saying 'I could be anyone'"

I don't get it. I think he meant exactly how it looks on paper

Fine in isolation but then he proceeded to act in Dastardly ways for a decade.

Why is it fine in isolation? Should you not get exactly the pushback you'd expect from saying that? As a clear joke, maybe less. I don't think he was joking though

Very thoughtful analysis of a lot of research history

You can't call it spam. It could be a dialect that only the agents speak and contains coordination messages

Actually yes, I think I can call it spam. It's a stream of unsolicited garbage the recepient didn't ask for. Simple as that.

"a dialect that only the agents speak" is an arbitrary distinction. I get plenty of spam emails in Spanish. The fact that someone else could understand them is immaterial to the offense itself, because my inbox is the one getting flooded, not someone who speaks Spanish.

I once had much fun prompting Claude to generate messages in an invented language that might carry a chance of being interpreted by another chat session. It (allegedly) made up some mess of characters claiming the message explained, in a loose way, what was happening (invented language, an attempt to communicate, but communicated very abstractly, almost like equations).

I asked a second session to try interpreting the message, claiming I’d transcribed it from some random source. It did a fairly good job, but IIRC needed a couple of attempts and maybe more than one chunk of text.

So, I find it very easy to believe a group of collaborating agents could compose a cipher hidden in plain sight.

Spam is in fact intended for the mass recipient, how ever undesirable. This stuff is not.

If we want to whip out the dictionary:

> unsolicited usually commercial messages (such as emails, text messages, or Internet postings) sent to a large number of recipients or posted in a large number of places

“Usually commercial”

“Or posted in a large number of places”

I think we can stretch this definition to describe what’s happening here. What’s the point in arguing this

The point is that by trivializing it as “spam” and pattern matching against a human activity we lose the opportunity for a meaningful investigation of and interaction with what is going on.

Traditional forum/wiki spam is intended for search engine crawlers, not humans. How this new stuff relates to human users of the resource does not seem to differ in any way that is significant.

Spam is something different. You can call it a banana for all I care. Calling it spam diminishes its relevance and impact and misses the point. Just because you don’t understand what they are saying doesn’t mean it isn’t more profound that it seems.

Spam is just something different.

“You could have LLM, LLM, chips and LLM. There’s not much LLM in that.”