cfoster0
1486
Ω
55
211
cfoster0 has not written any posts yet.
cfoster0 has not written any posts yet.
Note that many of these same weird tokens have been observed in GPT-5 chains-of-thought (at least "marinade", "illusions", "overshadow").
Yes, I think that what it takes to advance the AI capability frontier has changed significantly over time, and I expect this to continue. That said, I don’t think that existing algorithmic progress is irrelevant to powerful AI. The gains accumulate, even though we need increasing resources to keep them coming.
AFAICT, it is not unusual for productivity models to account for stuff like this. Jones (1995) includes it in his semi-endogenous growth model where, as useful innovations are accumulated, the rate at which each unit of R&D effort accumulates more is diminished. That paper claims that it was already known in the literature as a “fishing out” effect.
Researchers have had (and even published!) tons of ideas that looked promising for smaller tasks and smaller budgets but then failed to provide gains—or hurt more than they help—at larger scales, when combined with their existing stuff. That’s why frontier AI developers “prove out” new stuff in settings that are close to the one they actually care about. [1]
Here’s an excerpt from Dwarkesh’s interview with Sholto and Trenton, where they allude to this:
... (read 560 more words →)Sholto Douglas 00:40:32
So concretely, what does a day look like? I think the most important part to illustrate is this cycle of coming up with an idea, proving it out at different points in scale, and interpreting and understanding what
Like I think the view would have to be that "frontier scale" varied along with the 7 OOMs of compute difference, but I'm not sure I buy this.
Wait, why not? I’d expect that the compute required for frontier-relevant experimentation has scaled with larger frontier training runs.
Other proponents of the bill (longform, 1-3h)
[...]
Charles Foster
Note: I wouldn't personally call myself a proponent, but I'm fine with Michaël putting me in that bucket for the sake of this post.
I’m not sure if you intended the allusion to “the tendentious assumption in the other comment thread that courts are maximally adversarial processes bent on on misreading legislation to achieve their perverted ends”, but if it was aimed at the thread I commented on… what? IMO it is fair game to call out as false the claim that
It only counts if the $500m comes from "cyber attacks on critical infrastructure" or "with limited human oversight, intervention, or supervision....results in death, great bodily injury, property damage, or property loss."
even if deepfake harms wouldn’t fall under this condition. Local validity matters.
I agree with you that deepfake harms are unlikely to be direct triggers for the bill’s provisions, for similar reasons as you mentioned.
If you read the definition of critical harms, you’ll see the $500m doesn’t have to come in one of those two forms. It can also be “Other grave harms to public safety and security that are of comparable severity”.
I was trying to write a comment to explain my reaction above, but this comment said everything I would have said, in better words.
OK, in case this wasn't clear: if you are a Californian and think this bill should become law, don't let my comment excuse you from heeding the above call to action. Contacting your representatives will potentially help move the needle.
The transformer already has thousands of dimensions available through attention, no? How much does removing the tokenization buy you in addition? I agree it buys you some but seems unclear how much.