If it isn't accurate, it isn't showing anything. The Qwen math claim is entirely false in its presentation, it unblocked an existing capability. It did not instill a new one which is what an RSI loop would actually have to do
"[...] how you could prune harmful capabilities from models [...]"
We already do this, abliteration is the term that describes the pruning of capabilities or safeguards for models
"[...] not limited to emergent behavior in astra that might have come from something they've never even trained the model [...]"
If I was attempting to build RSI, I would have these exact types of problems in my RL datasets. There is no proof this is emergent behavior.
No, that is not what they are saying. Can we stop pretending like people are saying things other than they are
From them:
"Use procedure to try and bring it up for a vote. At least try to legislate."
"Edit: love the downvotes, keep them coming. “We’ve tried nothing and we’re all out of ideas.” Classic Big D."
They literally are. This guys is explicitly bitching about things actively happening.
From you:
"Just make an effort and use that as an explicit position when campaigning, then follow through."
He literally called making an explicit promises "pure puffery" and they cannot follow through until they are seated so no, they are not saying that. This person isn't worth defending and is not saying any of the things you are assigning to them.
Promises aren’t worth anything without action. Drawing up an actual bill and gathering early feedback/support is action, as real work is being accomplished through that process. Better to do the bulk of the work early and use it as proof to voters that there is real intent.
Which has nothing to do with what the other person was saying. Saying this is fine, assigning this language to someone else who was saying the opposite is not
Funding dragnet surveillance vs funding dragnet surveillance is the comparison. Not precisely sure what your bizarre example means but it’s nevertheless clearly a non-sequitur.
"Maybe the Republicans are worse" when the democrats have a plan to create a 100M domestic surveillance program and push it on the national stage, the word maybe becomes relevant. Until then, it is clear to everyone with a functional set of eyes what is happening; maybe schedule your check-up.
> when the democrats have a plan to create a 100M domestic surveillance program
Did you miss the Snowden reporting? How much do you think those programs cost? Whenever you hear someone’s political analysis contain “The Republicans…” “The Democrats…” you can be sure they have no grasp on how DC works.
No, I am just literate enough to understand that the executive office was not solely responsible for the 'Snowden reporting' and that it is responsible for the proposal in the article above. The democrats did not create or propose a 100M domestic surveillance program but go off king
"
Whenever you hear someone’s political analysis contain “The Republicans…” “The Democrats…” you can be sure they have no grasp on how DC works.
"
I'm not giving political analysis, retard. But you are clearly so smart and clever. Tell us all about the 'Snowden reporting' that president Obama personally proposed and executed. Not sure why he is reporting on himself but mister user seven numbers is sure to be a source of truth
uh no, 'we' absolutely do not want our tech to work exactly like this. Why would you assume that people default to 'search my anal cavity please' and not 'no, stay the fuck away from me with that glove'
----
jfc, why is this website full on psychopaths
"The actual fundamental underlying problem being that not all people are equal, but we kinda have to pretend they are, because not doing so leads to fascism and other terrible stuff.
But we kinda also do not want to fully pretend that, because doing so leads to yet other terrible stuff."
other people are not pretending everyone is equal. your power levels are showing, it isn't subtle.
True, most normal people have little concern for any such humanist goals and ideas.
Normal people live prejudice. It's (erm, claude-speak) load-bearing for them, given just how complex reality is and given just how well it reduces that complexity.
Really, none? Was Microsoft nefarious when they deployed Clippy? I feel like there is an incredibly obvious reason that is not nefarious at all: the average consumer likes cute things
Texas ceded said land to another state, what they viewed as another nation, such that they could keep the practice of human ownership alive and well. The quality of the land is immaterial to this statement, let alone noteworthy
I disagree, I think it adds context that the political climate of the time was more complicated and involved than the original point. It was a place where you couldn't farm and were under constant attack, during that time.
But none of what you are saying shows a complication, is historically interesting, or a proxy for the political climate. Had Texas kept the land, they could not have enforced the ability for the white ruling class to purchase other human beings. Since they were so hell bent on the white ruling class having the right to purchase other human beings, they ceded land to a hostile nation state. The headline is the forfeiture of land to a hostile nation state, not how many farms are on said land
I have lived in Texas all my life and I am used to dealing with people like you. Enjoy November.
This is an excuse for Christians behaving like animals by racing to the bottom, you consistently overstate how evil people are for reasons beyond me.
> Take away the shame that normally keeps it in check and people's bloodlust rises to the surface
Let me guess, the anti-christ is right around the corner, Peter.
> It is a rare person who chooses to deny themselves pleasure on moral grounds
No, it isn't. This person is average among us, they are rare among the elites and politicians. You don't need to paint others poorly because of your own self-image nor is it productive to do so
It was average people who attacked My Lai, and only one pilot did anything to stop it.
Most people do not usually want to do evil things and are usually repelled from doing them by feelings of shame or obligation. The moment the average person feels a desire for violence and will not be condemned for seeking it, they are as bloodthirsty as a serial killer. The constraints on people are emotional, not moral.
What is the confusion? They directly state that you are the product if you use their discounted offering. It isn't an assumption that should lead you to this, it is Meta's very direct communication that should lead you to this
hide your power levels if you are going to play the village idiot, it is more convincing. just extremely bad faith commenting
reply