Check if it's not 4o - they've rolled it out for some/all users and it's used by default.

"we need to have the beginning of a hint of a design for a system smarter than a house cat"

You couldn't make a story about this, I swear.

Great article.

The second rule is to ask for permission.

Is this supposed to be "The second rule is to ask for forgiveness."?

Check out this page, it goes up to 2024.

Nobody would understand that.

This sort of saying-things-directly doesn't usually work unless the other person feels the social obligation to parse what you're saying to the extent they can't run away from it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we could apply the concept of logical uncertainty to metaphysics and then use Bayes' theorem to update depending on where our metaphysical research takes us, the way we can use it to update the probability of logically necessarily true/false statements.

Bayes' theorem is about the truth of propositions. Why couldn't it be applied to propositions about ontology?

However, this image is obviously optimized to be scary and disgusting. It looks dangerous, with long rows of sharp teeth. It is an eldritch horror. It's at this point that I'd like to point out the simple, obvious fact that "we don't actually know how these models work, and we definitely don't know that they're creepy and dangerous on the inside."

It's optimized to illustrate the point that the neural network isn't trained to actually care about what the person training it thinks it came to care about, it's only optimized to act that way on the training distribution. Unless I'm missing something, arguing the image is wrong would be equivalent to arguing that maybe the model truly cares about what its human trainers want it to care about. (Which we know isn't actually the case.)

Well. Their actual performance is human-like, as long as they're using GPT-4 and have a right prompt. I've talked to such bots.

In any case, the topic is about what future AIs will do, so, by definition, we're speculating about the future.

They're accused, not whistleblowers. They can't retroactively gain the right to anonymity, since their identities have already been revealed.

They could argue that they became whistleblowers as well, and so they should be retroactively anonymized, but that would interfere with the first whistleblowing accusation (there is no point in whistleblowing against anonymous people), and also they're (I assume) in a position of comparative power here.

There could be a second whistleblowing accusation made by them (but this time anonymously) against the (this time) deanonymized accuser, but given their (I assume) higher social power, that doesn't seem appropriate.