It’s also the biggest country in the world by population, by far. That’s not really indicative of anything. China is also decarbonizing at an absolutely incredible rate, whereas the US are basically doing everything they can to increase their emissions.
They’re out of money and this is their cover story.
You’re giving them too much credit.
Trump is genuinely this stupid, and he’s also very insecure, which means he surrounds himself with people just as stupid as he is. Even when those people don’t agree with him, they keep it to themselves because Trump’s cult leader status allows him to completely destroy the standing of critics within his party with just a few words.
The result is monarchy; a leader deeply unfit for the role surrounded by sycophants who will nod in agreement to everything he says.
It’s a pleasant fantasy to think that there’s a plan. It would be nice if this was all by design. If America wasn’t being lead by some of the most stupid and incompetent people to have ever lived. Because what does that say about Americans, when their leadership are this pathetic?
But this is real and it’s happening. Trump is actually this moronic, and the people around him are stupid enough and craven enough to enable him. Those who aren’t, like half of the top generals at the Pentagon, get pushed out. The weak willed and the idiotic remain.
Even putting aside that it’s not nearly enough of a bribe to be worth keeping the GOP in power, there’s literally no chance of this actually happening.
$5,000 to every US adult is about $1.5 trillion. The entire US government budget deficit for 2025 was 1.85 trillion. They’re already cutting into the core entitlements like Medicare, while at the same time trying to find another half a trillion for the military. Where in the actual fuck do you think this money is going to come from?
The only realistic option is to add it to the debt, which would mean a bigger deficit than in any year of the pandemic spending.
There is literally no chance that any Republican or Democrat votes to approve a budget like that. Trump cannot do this on his own. He can fuck around - often illegally - with existing spending authorized by Congress, but he cannot unilaterally authorize new spending. And Congress will not authorize this. Not a chance in hell.
Literally the easiest pump and dump ever. Company failing and you want to dump your shares at a good price? Announce you’re doing AI! How? Who cares?! It’s AI!
They should invest in some NFTs while they’re at it. I hear those are only going up.
This is a drop in the bucket for OpenAI. They already make $40bn a year in revenue, and that’s not even close to enough to cover their staggering capex and compute costs.
Also, for anyone who doesn’t know, an “annualized” figure means you take a single month and multiply it by 12. If I sell my car for $15,000, I can claim an annualized income of $180,000 when in reality the money I made from selling cars that year is still only going to be $15,000. It’s a number that allows them to cherry pick one good month and then act as if every month is like that.
As for the claim that it shows “excellent growth”, this is equally meaningless. It’s like me extrapolating that my three month old puppy will be the size of New York City in three years based on their current growth rate. Growth doesn’t just continue in a flat line forever.
Good of the NYT to wake up to the problem they actively participated in creating.
Three years is the length of a bachelor’s degree at Oxford or Cambridge. Y’all are just bad at teaching or bad at learning if it takes you four to cover the same material.
Why the fuck are we even talking about this? It’s juvenile bullshit, and the fact that it’s coming from the man in the oval office, while deeply embarrassing for American, really has no bearing at all on us here in Canada. I could not care less what the pedophile in chief wants to call a fucking lake.
See, now you’ve flipped from making a legal judgement to making a moral one. I’m not defending the people who work on Grok. You’re allowed to think whatever you like of anyone who willingly takes a job for a Nazi. But there’s a difference between moral liability and legal liability. Even if I have precious little respect for those people, laws matter, because whatever legal standard you apply to someone else, you have to be willing to apply to yourself.
My understanding of hashing is a math function that reduces information.
Close, but not quite. A hash is better understood as a “fingerprint” for a given piece of data. Any given input will produce the same length of output, so it doesn’t really “reduce” information - a hash of “Hello world” would actually be significantly longer - but rather it identifies a matching piece of data.
This has a number of uses. For example,if you have a password system on a website, you don’t store a user’s actual password. That would be terrible for security. Instead you store the hash (yes, salted, for that one pedant who was about to interject). Then when the user enters their password to log in, you hash the entered password and compare it to the stored hash. If they match, you know they’re the same string. You can also create a hash of a file and provide that along with the file itself. If the receiver also hashes the file, they can then compare their hash to yours; if they don’t match, the file is corrupt or has been tampered with. You’ll often see this referred to as a checksum.
Technically, the reproducible data from a hash should be zero, so they don’t so much contain information as verify it. But as we’ve seen from that research, there are ways around that (not the only ones, to be sure). But the idea in theory is that you produce a hash through a one-directional algorithm; very easy to compute A from B, but very, very hard to compute B from A.
It should be noted that this is very different from stenography, which is a variety of systems for storing data, not fingerprinting it. Hashing is also distinct from encryption as a means of securing data, because encryption is intended to be reversible, hashing is not.
Yeah, it’s absolutely valid to question the degree to which this is an outcome that we should even want. If someone hides a CSAM image in the Linux kernel should Linux become illegal?
I think there is a valid distinction to be drawn in this case, because removing individual components of an LLM isn’t really something we know how to do. So there’s a fair argument that a model which is built using illegal content should be illegal, and if that means they have to completely retrain from scratch, so be it.
But yes, I’d want to be very careful about the lines around a law or ruling like that and exactly what it’s extent is. Child sex crimes and child safety are topics that tend to short-circuit all reasonable objections, and are frequently exploited as a means of getting bad laws onto the books. Bill C-22 up here in Canada is a great recent example.
If you came into work today to find your building full of feds packing up evidence, because it turned out that, entirely unbeknownst to you, five members of the C-suite had been running a child sex ring, would you consider yourself “complicit”?
deleted by creator
You can’t reproduce an approximation from any type of hash, so that argument is dead in the water.
https://www.pseudodna.eu/. Scroll down to “Hash reversal” where they demonstrate the technique.
Do you understand what I mean by stenographically embedded?
I took it to be an imperfect attempt to describe more broadly the way that data is mathematically encoded into LLMs.
Technically, stenography would require that the original be retrievable, since stenographic embedding is the process of concealing one thing inside another. Stenos, from the Greek “covered”. Personally, I’d argue that to conceal, you have to be able to reveal. If I throw a photograph into a fire I haven’t hidden the image in the fire. Modern stenographic image embedding techniques use methods of encoding data into another dataset without visibly altering the second set, with the intent being that that data can later be retrieved by someone who knows that it’s there (eg, least significant bit, where you change only the “1” bit of each pixel. This imperceptibly shifts the colour values of the image to a human viewer, but allows you to read out that stored data at a later time).
Now, since your argument rests on the exact opposite, that the data is not retrievable, I simply accepted the term as a “close enough” approximation for what I believe we’re both talking about - the extremely complex multidimensional data arrangement that forms the core of an LLM - and carried on from there because I find that sometimes it’s better to just roll with a person’s choice of language rather than quibble over it.
But since you clearly feel that your meaning was either improperly expressed, or improperly understood, you’re welcome to elaborate.
That’s what courts exist to decide.
Yeah, the stakes are just too high for SpaceX to let this get to trial. Any amount of illegality becomes worth it when you consider the alternative.
The only other possibility I can see is that they pull a Bungie; “perform an internal investigation”, find an intern to blame for everything, and throw a huge settlement at Jane Doe. But even that would require an absolutely insane cover up to pull off.
But you didn’t say “The people at the top”, you said “Everyone.” I think you need to take a moment to figure out what you’re actually arguing for here.
Again, I would happily see anyone who had knowledge of this arrested. They either supported it, or knew of it and said nothing. And yeah, we can throw in anyone who maintained wilful ignorance too. If that includes Elon himself, so much the better. We already know the dude is a fucking pedophile, maybe this is how they’ll finally nail him.
But if you’re arguing for arresting the cafeteria lunch guy over this, that is an insane position to hold.
So which is it?
Huh, as of 2023 apparently. Thank you for the correction.