SOME human relationships are the most valuable thing we have. Many (if not most) human relationships in many cultures are just trespassing everyone's boundary via peer pressure.
You speak as if middle of (not even statistically divided but carelessly divided) human opinion groups is neutral. There is something called facts, and we are living in a physical world.
Unless you also believe the neutral view is earth being half flat and half round.
Also, governments consists of a large amount of human each acting for their own benefit. Assuming they can easily collectively united as a single force to use violence to harm all citizen (on the topic of privacy, it really is the case) suddenly is wild.
On the contrary, for a limited government, it very likely will result in using the monopoly of violence to provide extreme capitalism style IP and private property protection which results in dominating power of large companies. On the other hand, every bit of history demonstrated you can never maintain monopoly of violence if you are really against people.
Monopoly on economic is strong because it can be guarded by violence, while violence cannot be easily guarded by itself within a country (unless AI overlord really comes).
Any one with critical thought should realize government behavior are usually symbolic and does not necessarily try to solve what it claims to (try to) solve on paper.
Given the capability of fable and the shockingly repetitive silly mistakes they made when publishing/updating something, I am starting to wondering whether Anthrophic can afford Fable for everything themselves.
People always conflate this statement. Only government can take "right" from people. Just opposing people don't make them lose their right. Otherwise it is taking away the right to say against what you say.
At 21 century, especially on a topic regarding Europe, I thought we should have long learnt the lesson from how problematic Legal Positivism and naive "freedom" is from Weimarer Republik‘s constitution.
In short, freedom should at least maintain the capability of preserving basic poltical freedom. From my understanding of that party, they are clearly against other people's existing political freedom.
Yet a published peer-reviewed research should be against humanity. I am also curious whether such research can bring knowledge that apple don't know, otherwise even it is impressive, there is a level of sadness in it from my view.
Evidently Fable is so powerful that it already allow Anthropic to break Shannon's theory.
>We will require 30-day retention for all traffic on Mythos-class models, on both first- and third-party surfaces. We won’t use this data to train new Claude models
>The data will help us defend against complex and novel attacks (including new jailbreaks and attacks that operate across many requests) as well as help us identify and reduce false positives.
So you're trying to convince a community of mostly engineers — using the example of a terribly outdated technology that stays overpriced purely through symbolization because the luxury industry's bubble keeps holding — that flashy looks, advertising, and fancy concepts aren't really beloved and worthy? Fascinating.
I keep noticing a wrong narrative when it comes to FOSS software. Comparing software to traditional labouring jobs is quite pointless: you designed and built a car for yourself, building a second one for someone else has costs; you cleaned your own private garden, cleaning someone else's garden has costs; repairing every bike, however sophisticated you are, has costs (Just listing the narratives I see on this page). Giving away a software you already have wrote for yourself has almost 0 cost, and I think this is the main motivation (at least at the beginning) of most FOSS software: the developer themselves needs to use it anyway. This uniqueness is what I consider one of the main reason why FOSS can succeed in the first place unlike in almost any other engineering fields. In a sense, you can say it is exactly what Marx call "all sources of collective wealth flowing abundantly".
This is very different from: I see an ongoing demand for X, and thus I work to provide a product that supplies X. In this case, naturally, I will not want to give it away for free, even if it is software.
yet the poc exploit itself take $2000 and one day, I don't know how the math works, maybe there is some extremely clever way to figure out runs that are not worthy to attempt exploit.
There is a huge gap between the shining examples and actual use case: What is the false positive rate? How to judge false positive?
If you need 1000 run that cost 20000 USD to find a vulnerability, and you need 2000 USD to generate a exploit (which makes it self-verifiable to be not false positive), than your cost is not 22000 USD but 1000x2000+2000 which is 2 million USD: you have to try generating exploit for every trial before you know it is true, or you need to hire one (or several) senior security people to audit every single of them.
A broken clock being correct twice a day is not impressive.
Disclaimer: I am from Scandinavian.