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!
But imo, the really high quality of Nolan's visual directing does so much work distracting people from how lacking the movie is in actual substance.
Kind of describes most of Nolan's movies really. As a technical director, he's almost unparalleled, but his movies have often struggled to find a meaningful emotional core. They're all polish, but often lacking in substance. Tenet was especially bad for this. An absolute masterpiece of directorial craftsmanship, but almost entirely devoid of basic elements like characters.
He's made some absolute gems - The Dark Knight still holds up, Memento deserves its reputation, and The Prestige is a masterpiece - but I find that for the most part he seems more interested in technical flexes than in the actual story he's telling. I've enjoyed every single one of his movies, don't get me wrong, but they don't stick with me the way that something like Prisoners or Only God Forgives does.
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.
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"?
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.
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.
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!