https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbOckHiVXZc

Or 3 or 4 lol

[dead]

Or when they didn’t release thinking models until deepseek was first released

We got Mythos 1 week after the "too dangerous" announcement at the firm I was at during that time(larger bank).

So the danger level is proportionate to how little money you have

It's worth looking into for the decreased cost if nothing else

You’re not missing out. Astra was good for a couple of days and is now so quantized it’s often worse than 5.6. And 6 sol is a nothing burger to keep a wedge in the media when Opus 5.5 came out.

What are we going to do when the servers are in space? Presumably, that would involve shooting down a bunch of satellites and sending us into Kessler Syndrome in the process.

Unrealistically low TC, instant immersion killer.

They would never upset their AI eschaton by switching it off. If anything they need more ceremonial cult leaders.

I have the best model, but it lives in Canada, so you wouldn't know it.

I would consider it more "bizarre" to assume that Sam Altman was telling the truth about anything.

https://web.archive.org/web/20240112010809/https://www.sfchr...

Car companies sell mostly the same car every year. They don’t have billions (or trillions) of dollars of debt riding on the next model they release being substantially better and cheaper (closer to profitability) than the previous one.

These AI companies have been selling AGI as coming any day for a while now. If it doesn’t arrive soon, the safety angle may be the only spin that keeps the massive (and required) investments pouring in.

If instead the narrative became that LLM progress was slowing, we’d almost certainly be looking at the next global recession.

At this point, there is too much money in AI for the truth to have much of a chance.

(Not saying that it is a marketing stunt, though they said the same thing about GPT-2).

I think the marketing stunt portion is more that the technology is "too powerful". It's just TOO good. It's so intelligent we couldn't possibly give it to the public! This message, to anyone who's using AI, means that there's something even BETTER than the one they're currently using.

Because no car company would ever announce they had an unsafe car. They’d fix the problem and announce an awesome car.

Hype: you tell the world you alone have a very powerful and potentially dangerous product, and you're the only one who can be trusted keeping it safe.

Motorcycle manufacturers have been known to do so. Riding a motorcycle is thrilling in part because it is dangerous. The fact that powerful motorcycles are so difficult to control that most people have no business owning one is absolutely used to make them sound cool and desirable.

For instance, this article repeatedly mentions danger and the need for absolute focus and control:

https://www.triumphmotorcycles.co.uk/for-the-ride/news/inspi...

There is also a parallel (though not a very close one) to "pacing the frontier": there's a gentleman's agreement that limits the top speed of motorcycles to 300 kph (186 mph).

Because they declare that their product is unsafe regularly, which gains massive exposure on every news outlet worldwide, then they release the model anyway with zero negative repercussions.

What's with so many people using bad analogies to try and explain simple topics?

Last time this happened: GPT - 4 https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/mar/17/openai-sa...

Different type of business. Many car companies release new cars showing you how much more powerful and implied dangerous they are. Both in capabilities and design style. In the US (other places too , but especially) they also get much bigger with less visibility which gets double dangerous. But the sentiment they're going for is pretty close - "you want this powerful thing, don't you?"

> so when is the last time you saw an auto company decide not to release its new car on the grounds that some tragic engineering error was made and the cars were not safe to drive?

How about we actually try to make it sound cool? They're not releasing the new car because the horsepower was too much, they need more time to get it under control.

I could easily see a car company doing that.

At the moment, their main "customer" is investors, not users. But even users want to use the most dangerous model, because dangerous is just another word for powerful.

Sports cars are advertised with how fast they can accelerate from time to time, or tesla's "ludicrous mode" - that is them advertising how dangerous it is.

I think your inclination to take them at face value is the bizarre behavior

It's perfectly safe for YOU, the CUSTOMER.

It's just so powerful that, like, the WORLD can't handle it, man!

Why do you think they would announce this then?

They know what they're doing, even if you don't.

There are cars that market based on only being track legal — and even more that market on requiring being tuned down for street safety.

Most sports cars do the second, exactly like OpenAI.

Considering that the venn diagram of AI safety gooners and OpenAI is a circle, and that these idiots are starting to worship this stuff as a religion, expecting rational action from them is kind of ludicrous. For all we know Aella promised them a gangbang if they delayed the model a week.

brothel?

I could believe it could be a dangerous model, I guess.

I don't believe they really care about danger, or that they'd actually fully withhold release on anything significant.

And when I say "significant", is 6.1 Astra even meaningfully different from 6 Astra in capability? That release was less than a month ago.

Did they fix it by not releasing a point release of an already existing model? No?

Did they just get a bunch of credulous "news" coverage out of it? Yes?

Will they just release this within the next weeks, at best? Yes?

Huh, funny that.

I’m tired of the doom trolling. Boy who cried wolf. We can’t stop them anyway so no point in letting them stress me any further

So we should believe the boy who cried wolf, this time?

If all these claims were being made about some tech further along than LLMs currently are, they might be plausible. But LLMs on their own are not going to be “superintelligence” of the kind Altman is currently cynically spreading fear about. We know their limitations, and those limitations can’t simply be eliminated with more training or better harnesses.

> Just imagine that people ringing the fire alarms are being sincere.

The top three possibilities here are: they’re not being sincere, they’re just marketing; they’re being sincere, but they don’t understand the technology very well and are putting too much weight in what the first group are saying; they’re talking about a risk further in the future than OpenAI’s latest model.

No-one serious outside of OpenAI believes “this is the one”. At best, you’re conflating arguments being made on entirely different timelines, falling for the exact kind of equivocation Altman is relying on.