The script doesn’t go away when you replace a helpdesk operator with ChatGPT. You just get a script-reading interface without empathy and a severally hindered ability to process novel issues outside it’s protocol.

The humans you speak to could do exactly what you’re asking for, if the business did not handcuff them to a script.

The reason the article compares to commercial flights is your everyday reader knows planes’ emissions are large. It’s a reference point so people can weight the ecological tradeoff.

“I can emit this much by either (1) operating the global airline network, or (2) running cloud/LLMs.” It’s a good way to visualize the cost of cloud systems without just citing tons-of-CO2/yr.

Downplaying that by insisting we look at the transportation industry as a whole doesn’t strike you as… a little silly? We know transport is expensive; It is moving tons of mass over hundreds of miles. The fact computer systems even get close is an indication of the sheer scale of energy being poured into them.

I don’t believe that explanation is more probable. If the NSA had the power to compell Apple to place a backdoor in their chip, it would probably be a proper backdoor. It wouldn’t be a side channel in the cache that is exploitable only in specific conditions.

The exploit page mentions that the Intel DMP is robust because it is more selective. So this is likely just a simple design error of making the system a little too trigger-happy.

Wow, what a dishearteningly predictable attack.

I have studied computer architecture and hardware security at the graduate level—though I am far from an expert. That said, any student in the classroom could have laid out the theoretical weaknesses in a “data memory-dependent prefetcher”.

My gut says (based on my own experience having a conversation like this) the engineers knew there was a “information leak” but management did not take it seriously. It’s hard to convince someone without a cryptographic background why you need to {redesign/add a workaround/use a lower performance design} because of “leaks”. If you can’t demonstrate an attack they will assume the issue isn’t exploitable.

The example is pretty standard, but I feel obligated to caution people about the author (just because he’s linked to here and some unassuming people might dive in).

Scott Alexander falls loosely under the TESCREAL umbrella of ideologies. Even in this article, he ends up concluding the only way out is to build a superintelligent AI to govern us… which is like the least productive, if not counterproductive, approach to solving the problem. He’s just another technoptimist shunting problems onto future technologies that may or may not exist.

So, yeah, if anyone decides they want to read more of his stuff, make sure to go in informed / having read critiques of TESCREALism.

You’re not idolizing Tyler Durden, are you? Because you shouldn’t idolize Tyler Durden.

… This is to say, making it illegal to generate life-like images and videos of celebrities, non-celebrities, and political figures without consent is in no way this doomsday scenario you say.

Defamation and libel are illegal. You can use open-source tools to perform defamation and libel, or you can use those same tools in a way that doesn’t constitute defamation and libel.

I think you’re assuming we’re discussing regulating deep fakes (the software), when really everyone is talking about regulating deep fakes (, the use of).

Reuters mentions the execution used a facial mask connected to a tank of nitrogen.

So yeah… No CO2 removal and probably not a perfect seal against outside atmosphere. This is a pretty half-assed implementation.

That kind of model is unfortunately common for university courses. I had it for my language courses, and a couple of the core maths courses.

The online platform justifies a subscription by providing additional resources, homework grading, etc. Fair enough, honestly, if they want to charge you $15 or something reasonable. But when textbook access gets rolled into the bundle, it tends to inflate the subscription cost and also have the convenient-for-the-publisher side effect of temporary access to the text. Lose-lose, from a student perspective.

I had a course that required we buy a license to Pearson’s service in order to submit homework. $100+ to view a pdf for a semester and submit homework through a buggy form interface. I still hold a grudge against everyone in the department for that decision.

Yeah, I was complaining too. Or am I not understanding you?

Having express self-checkoit is great. The Kroger near me went full-self-checkout. They have large kiosks that mimmic the traditional checkout belt kiosks, except the customer scans at the head of the belt and the items move into the bagging area.

If you have a full cart, you scan all the items, checkout, walk to the end of the belt, and bag all of your items. Takes twice as long as bagging while a cashier scans (for solo shoppers), and because of the automatic belt the next customer cannot start scanning until you finish bagging, or their items will join the pile of your items.

It effectively destroys all parallelism is the process (bagging while scanning, customers pre-loading their items with a divider while the prior customer is still being serviced), and with zero human operated checkouts running you get no choice

Sorry for the long reply, I got carried away. See the section below for my good-faith reply, and the bottom section for “what are you implying by asking me this?” response.

From the case studies in my scientific ethics course, I think she probably would have lost her job regardless, or at least been “asked to resign”.

The fact it was in national news, and circulated for as long as it did, certainly had to do with her identity. I was visiting my family when the story was big, and the (old, conservative, racist) members of the family definitely formed the opinion that she was a ‘token hire’ and that her race helped her con her way to the top despite a lack of merit.

So there is definitely a race-related effect to the story (and probably some of the “anti- liberal university” mentality). I don’t know enough about how the decision was made to say whether she would have been fired those effects were not present.

Just some meta discussion: I’m 100% reading into your line of questioning, for better or worse. But it seems you have pinned me as the particular type of bigot that likes to deny systemic biases exist. I want to just head that off at the pass and say I didn’t mean to entirely deny your explanation as plausible, but that given a deeper view of the cultural ecosystem of OpenAI it ceases to be likely.

I don’t know your background on the topic, but I enjoy following voices critical of effective altruism, long-termism, and effective accelerationism. A good gateway into this circle of critics is the podcast Tech Won’t Save Us (the 23/11/23 episode actually discusses the OpenAI incident). Having that background, it is easy to paint some fairly convincing pictures for what went on at OpenAI, before Altman’s sexuality enters the equation.

Fair enough. I disagree, but we’re both in the dark here so not much to do about it until more comes to light.

I mean, their press release said “not consistently candid”, which is about as close to calling someone a liar as corporate speak will get. Altman ended up back in the captain’s chair, and we haven’t heard anything further.

If the original reason for firing made Altman look bad, we would expect this silence.

If the original reason was a homophobic response from the board, we might expect OpenAI to come out and spin a vague statement on how the former board had a personal gripe with Altman unrelated to his performance as CEO, and that after replacing the board everything is back to the business of delivering value etc. etc.

I’m not saying it isn’t possible, but given all we know, I don’t think the fact that Altman is gay (now a fairly general digestible fact for public figures) is the reason he was ousted. Especially if you follow journalism about TESCREAL/Silicon Valley philosophies it is clear to see: this was the board trying to preserve the original altruistic mission of OpenAI, and the commercial branch finally shedding the dead weight.

Discourse is a forum software, not a chat software. It is meant to be public, accessible, and indexable by search engines.

I seriously doubt it had anything to do with his wedding. I don’t think the sexuality of a CEO is that big an issue in this day (see: Tim Cook).

Especially considering how Atman’s has steered OpenAI vs. the boards’ stated mission, it seems much more likely that his temporary ousting had to do with company direction rather than his sexuality.

SBF’s peak was a few years ago. This year all he’s done is show during his trial how deluded these techbros/EAs can actually be. At least SBF had the common courtesy to remove himself from public life within 5 years. Style points for the life-in-prison ending, while simultaneously killing mainstream crypto.

We’re stuck with Altman for the foreseeable future, and now with a recently purged OpenAI board that will let him continue the industry-wide commercialization of copyright infringement (but only of the laypersons’ IP. Better not ask it to draw Mickey Mouse, though).

It’s also really unclear where OpenAI lies on the EA/Longtermist/E Acc pipeline. Altman is likely letting whackos have some pretty serious power.

I’ll just add that “designed to be burned up” is the correct approach to these types of satellite constellations. SpaceX has that aspect correct, at least.

Agree with everything else. Musk is a batshit egomaniac, and letting him dictate use of large infrastructure is careless. Government subsidies should entail a certain public influence over the operation of the system.

Alleles becoming dominant or recessive based on upbringing? My brother, what publications have you been reading?

The heritability of sexuality is not a scientifically defensible claim at this point—let alone the other claims you just made.