I'd prefer a mode where you fail the word, but can continue to the next word.
Perhaps it is intentionally part of the design, but being a bit of a perfectionist, I failed a couple of times, and found that actually the longer words were (often) easier than the shorter ones...
"The only solution is to lock every LLM query in the entire stack behind the same deterministic role-based access controls that determine resources available to the current user."
Exactly. The sooner people stop trying to replace code with LLMs, the better. The technology is fundamentally untrustworthy, and given that we do not understand it, impossible to secure.
Only extremely simple code audited by multiple human authors, with actual proof of functionality (not just testing) can be considered secure.
Partly the issue is, it was never the right model.
If you write/wrote code, you were a manager. Probably a better one than your "people manager" ever was, but that is/was arguably a different skill. What you managed was extremely technical, more akin to a line manager or an operations manager than a people manager.
Which, yes, everyone could not be the manager. Everyone who was not the manager could be quality control (QC), and handle the parts that "only a human" could handle.
The problem is, AI fits in nowhere in this equation, rather it throws it out. AI can manage, like any manager it can short circuit it's QC, in pursuit of an arbitrary metric. Even the idea of "human in the loop" is fundamentally flawed - if the human is not at some level the one directing (managing), there is no reason to stop incuding the human, less and less, in the work.
The irony is, they are building their own competitor...
Yeah, we get that nobody can trust China/Russia/USA/Shady cabal of too-rich-people, but we stopped the atom bomb because it was MAD (mutually assured destruction).
We need a similar treaty to ban any use of AI in this fashion, because all that will happen is creation of weapons that are inevitably turned on their owners.
And then, yes, as a coalition, declare war on any country that violates this.
I hate to be a proponent for war, but one's coming either way. I'd prefer a relatively peaceful resolution to some of our problems, not a "oh my god the robots have rebelled, and we are losing" scenario.
Infinities of random sequences exist that can be shown not to contain all data, 0-8 (base 10) is one such random sequence that is trivially proven to never contain 9...
There are no known patterns to pi, but, (I am legitimately curious about this), are there any known sequences e.g. of 1 million 0s and a single other digit within the decimal sequence of pi?
Given how it (pi) looks, I'm of the strong suspicion is that the answer is "no". But of course, proving that requires that some property of the randomness is provable. Which it does feel as if, given there are different infinities, there are also different randomnesses, hence the conjecture is ill-formed and probably incorrect...
I don't think you understand the goal of a hackathon. They aren't (or weren't) VC pitch sessions.
You don't run marathons to be usane bolt, you don't go to hackathons to land VC deals.
24 hours of non stop AI usage doesn't sound fun. It sounds hateful and demotivating, you want to discover yourself, and maybe some other people, not what a robot can do.
Put another way, you do not deny a proof by inference because it "leads to large numbers".
We don't need to speculate, we can see many, many examples today of more and less intelligent species, and also what happens to the less intelligent ones, even taking humans out of the equation.
I'd argue, even a machine intelligence that merely managed to be mildly smarter than us would be a threat. AGI merely has the potential to be infinitely smarter than us, but that's somewhat irrelevant given we might not even be smart enough to realize how much smarter they are (a cat will likely not appreciate the difference in intelligence between a dog, an elephant, or a dolphin, despite all those animals being generally smarter).
They are more characterized by how they grow and when they stop than by their "physical reality". Proof of this is in that different infinities exist - characterized precisely by how fast they grow, i.e., one "infinity" is "larger" than the other.
My point is, getting hung up on "infinity" as being unrealistic is not the point. It is the tool with which to understand how thing behave. The same as any calculus problem - you take the limit to the infinity to understand how the function behaves.
For all its talk of inoculation, this is a terribly written essay. They do not make a point, nor even arguments, instead, opting to ramble in hopes that you forget whatever it was you were thinking.
The issue is simple. Just like us (who are arguably complex, look at what we're building over here, this AI computer stuff!), entities have simple core needs (like food, water, power, etc.).
An infinitely smart AGI has the potential, nay, likely cause, to require infinite resources. We're already seeing the effect in the computing sector on e.g. chips, there's no reason to think this trend won't continue...
Lets circle back to the hydrogen argument, will we blow ourselves up. Real concern, abated by hard numbers. Different atmosphere, different concentrations, different pressure, different possible outcomes.
Today, we don't have those numbers. We don't have those calculations. I don't disagree with the point at the end "about how people can exploit other people, or through carelessness introduce immoral behavior into automated systems". These are issues, too. But saying there are other issues, don't worry about this big issue over here, is the absolute worse argument possible.
Yeah, this (the OPs) reads like a confused teenagers post, who has just started to explore the intracacies of logic. The whole post disproves itself...
Fuzzy logic is fine, I suspect they saw something like this and got confused. I would recommend they think harder about how very pertinent boolean logic is to everything they are doing before dismissing it...
Ill thought out logic like your own. I think you are likely a bot at this point.
It's not likely, because that's not something that people are likely to do. Only a bot like yourself with a poor model of the world will do this type of thing. It will be amusing to see the AI bots trying to run the scam you are describing and then nobody will contribute to the fake projects... except other fake AI contributors.
We really need to solve SPAM itself here, I think there may be a way to do it. I.e., the problem of spam is NtoN scaling connections. The network has never been able to solve that problem (exponential is the hardest). Limiting communication in terms of mesh networking may be the ultimate solution - bots can't get to you because they can't reach you.
What needs to be invented is a bridging protocol - some way to establish "legitimate" lines of communication over a network, while preserving (to some degree) privacy and decentralization. AI can only enter this network by being explicitly added to the channel, and thereby explicitly and easily blocked (and also solving the general SPAM issue once and for all).
Perhaps it is intentionally part of the design, but being a bit of a perfectionist, I failed a couple of times, and found that actually the longer words were (often) easier than the shorter ones...