Phasing out leap seconds is such a crack pot idea. Read the resolution [1]. The conclusion hinges entirely on accepting the immutability of these 2 premises:
recalling that the CGPM at its 26th meeting (2018)
- stated that UTC is the only recommended time scale for international reference and the basis of civil time in most countries,
- recommended all relevant unions and organizations to work together to develop a common understanding on the realization and dissemination of reference time scales with a view to considering the present limitation on the maximum magnitude of UT1 - UTC to meet the needs of the current and future user communities,
I accept all the other premises from the resolution, but then the obvious conclusion should be to just recommend TAI instead of UTC for any application that could be disrupted by leap seconds, instead of butchering UTC and turning it into just a worse version of TAI.
This is follows the classic AI policy influence playbook: enumerate a small handful of potential outcomes that make your preferred policy seem obviously correct, ignoring the fact that there are literally infinite more "plans" that could be reasonably predicted that would support wildly different policy prescriptions.
Sounds like they did have quorum (84% present). I'm assuming the "trick" is related to the fact that it was an expired law up for renewal instead of a brand new law, which sounds pretty dumb to me. Maybe I'm mistaken about the details tho. I'm just some guy
I'm constantly amazed at how far I can get in Portugal or Italy speaking only Spanish. They're different languages but you can make it work well enough in pretty much every situation I've been in.
I don't think there's a meaningful difference between "deterministic" and "reproducible" the way you just used them. How can something be reproducible if you can't accurately predict what it will do?
Regardless, you can make them deterministic by turning the temperature down to zero. Just nobody likes doing that for whatever reason. I guess it ruins some sort of illusion people seem to like.
Imagine managing a team of people with no knowledge of their craft, like a team of doctors when you know nothing about being a doctor. You might be pretty confident that you can do it really well. The doctors would probably think that your "management" is unnecessary and potentially counter-productive.
If this is true, then at some point we will stop committing source code to repositories, and instead commit prompts. The LLM would be a "compiler" that can reliably turn a vast collection of natural-language prompts into a complete system.
I just don't see that, not least of all because natural language is inherently ambiguous, whereas all the other rungs in your latter ("machine code -> assembly -> C/JVM -> some lang") are completely unambiguous by design. Consider "I saw the man with the binoculars". Does that mean "I used binoculars to look at the man", or "The man I looked at was holding binoculars"? This is the kind of inherent ambiguity that Lojban was invented to mitigate. Maybe some day we'll write "natural" language prompts in Lojban that can be unambiguously translated by an LLM, but that sounds a lot like just using a "some lang".
Let's assume for the sake of argument that Anthropic has a monopoly over significantly superior models. They will never be a perfect gatekeeper. The number of black hat hackers with access they shouldn't have will be highly correlated with the total number with access, so to be "conservative" Anthropic would deny access to many white hat hackers who should have access (like my company, which runs cloud infra for hundreds of other companies but is nonetheless too small to be considered). It only takes a few bad apples to ruin the bunch, and once a black hatter has access, all the white hatters without would be exposed. At that point, it would be better for everyone to have access.
Luckily, Anthropic has no such monopoly, so the point is sorta moot
Every single one of those sentences is highly dubious. Cyber-defenders would be pretty jazzed about having easier access to Mythos-class models. Cyber-defense is easier with better tools.
Of course that's what Dario thinks because that's what every tech CEO thinks. Dario, Sam, Sundar, probably many Chinese CEOs as well. It's what everyone thinks. That's why they're competing so fiercely with one another. That's why they basically make all the same decisions. That's why we need properly open source AI.
I agree that Dario is pretty annoying, but I think the "tech villain" archetype is essentially survivorship bias. The tech leaders who don't act that way are not nearly as visible because they're not nearly as successful.
You could also audit the JavaScript / Wasm that's running in your browser. In fact, a security-focused e2e application might want to purposely keep all client-side code un-minified and highly readable for this very purpose, but decompilers and LLMs could provide reasonable auditability regardless
When you're announcing a new model, typically, nobody else has benchmarked it yet, because it hasn't been released yet. You can still run 3p benchmarks on it and publish those results. If other parties later run the same benchmarks independently, and find major discrepancies, that would be a scandal.
There is far more human genetic diversity within Africa then there is in the rest of the world combined.
Also, your notion that certain people are inherently tied to certain places is only true if you accept arbitrary cutoffs for arrival time. The Lakota migrated from the Great lakes to the western planes in the 1700s, but it's hard to imagine them without their horses (which came from the old world) and bison (which they never would have hunted in ~Michigan). More time has passed since the arrival of the Spanish in Tenochtitlan, than between the arrival of the Aztecs (who probably migrated there from ~Arizona) and the Spanish. And of course, All the Native Americans descended from tribes that crossed the Bering straight from Russia, and every human's ancestors lived exclusively in Africa for a very long time. Anglo Saxons, Gaels, Norse, etc were constantly on the move within Europe before any of them crossed the Atlantic. Israelites displaced Canaanites before being displaced by Romans, then Arabs, then "coming back" after WW2. At any point in time, in any location on earth, the ethnic groups considered "native" almost certainly descended from people who were not considered native within at most a couple hundred years. Many white people can trace over 2 hundred years of ancestry in the new world. To say that's not enough to qualify as "native" is to have an incoherent conception of nativeness.
English doesn't help. I realize I myself used the term "Native American" while trying to argue that the term is out of date, but our language just was never equipped to describe these kinds of long term, highly chaotic processes.
I accept all the other premises from the resolution, but then the obvious conclusion should be to just recommend TAI instead of UTC for any application that could be disrupted by leap seconds, instead of butchering UTC and turning it into just a worse version of TAI.
[1]: https://www.bipm.org/en/cgpm-2022/resolution-4