We see that frontier models are intelligent enough to manage humans
Really? The manager who asked baristas to pay for things with their personal credit card is "intelligent enough to manage humans"? The manager who asked workers to put raw eggs in a high-speed oven? The one who makes such bad decisions that the workers made a Wall of Shame about those decisions? Despite the learning curve, the café is working. In the first two weeks of operation, Andon Café has brought in 44,000 SEK in sales. Mona’s inbox has been flooded with messages from customers asking questions or pitching different business proposals. In one case, a customer emailed wanting to prepay for 300 coffees to give away. Mona negotiated a deal where he paid 9,000 SEK in exchange for 300 QR codes that people could redeem for a free coffee. In another case, a startup paid her 3,000 SEK to rename a pastry after them for three months.
This only demonstrates that viciously stupid AI stunts can go viral, even in otherwise decent countries like Sweden. How stupid does Andon Labs think we are to take this as a sign of AI management success? None of this reflects normal cafe operations. It reflects the Stockholm tech scene checking out the gimmicky AI cafe. By running this experiment, we shift the discussion of how we want this future to look earlier in time, so we can better prepare.
Better prepare for what? Evil AI labs running experiments without any ethical oversight? Shockingly evil, by the way: no one’s livelihood depends on the judgment of an AI alone.
"Alone." How kind of them. By the way, it is incredibly despicable, even by the low low low standards of AI researchers, to run this sort of experiment on people looking for work. I couldn't believe the humans responsible let their stupid AI post ads on Indeed and LinkedIn. What scumbags. So… are the neurons on that chip seeing?
We all desperately want to say no.
But I can confidently say "no, that's totally childish, the neurons are clearly not seeing anything." And in fact it's not even especially clear that they're "playing DOOM" vs. hitting a biased random number generator in response to carefully preprocessed inputs that come from DOOM. There is a major distinction when the enemy positions are directly piped into the brain. trained them to play DOOM - honestly better than I do.
Maybe the author really really sucks at DOOM, but I think this is a false embellishment: To play DOOM, the system feeds visual data to the neurons. For the neurons to react, they have to interpret that data in some way.
This is totally false - not even a misleading metaphor, just plain wrong. The neuronal computer doesn't get any visual information: Cognitive Stack
System 3 - Long Term Drives
I love being petted.
System 2 - Emotionally-Aware Reasoning
Goal: Receive pets.
IWM - Internal World Model
Guardian in view (right, moderate distance). Being petted.
My Guardian is paying attention to me. My Guardian is reaching a hand toward me.
What childish people. What a sordid vision of "cognition" these chuds have. One of my boy cats looooovvveess getting kisses, even though it obviously annoys him a little, it's not as utilitarian as petting with a hand, and he cleans off my stinky human germs afterwards. It's because I love him and he knows it, and he loves it when I show him affection. Good luck writing a prompt that conveys that adequately to your LLM-robot. Jones describes two scenarios for when a Familiar’s owner comes home: In the first, the person bends down with arms wide open, ready for a hug. In the second, the person is rushed, with an armload of groceries, no time for robo-snuggles. The Familiar will know whether to run up or to hang back.
I hope nobody involved with this has actual pets: Is a person happy or sad? Are they having an argument? When does a sad person want comfort... or solitude? The Familiar must be programmed to handle these scenarios, like an autonomous vehicle is programmed to handle tricky intersections.
All of a Familiar’s behaviors are intended to be approachable and inoffensive, says Morgan Pope, a Familiar Machines roboticist who spent almost eight years at Disney Research. Some of the ways the robot moves are based on the moves of dogs and other animals: how close it comes to a person, the speed at which it approaches, even the way it bats its eyes and twitches its ears.
Training a robot on the intricate timing of initiating interaction with a new person is an "enormously hard" problem, says Pope.
Maybe it's not "enormously hard." Maybe it's "should never be solved." Humans are not meant to have totally one-sided interactions with beings who only want to please us. You have to actually be friendly and nice to dogs and cats, pretend to be interested in what they're interested in, just like with other humans.
But there are a lot of academic and research institutions that actually do have good Linux user management. I worked at a pediatric hospital, and the RHEL HPC admins did not mess around in terms of who was allowed to access which patients' data. As someone who was not an admin, it was a huge pain and it should have been. So this bug has pretty serious implications, seems like anyone at that hospital can abscond with a lot of deidentified data. [research HPC not as sensitive as the clinical stuff, which I think was all Windows Server]