And you don't think those are pretty low-level?

If they're doing the same thing as the interrupts that the article is talking about, they are low-level.

If they aren't, then the comparison is by name only.

Yes it’s not bad, although it’s not meant to be a chatbot, post training is limited, so it won’t feel as smooth as TOTL of course. The number of supported languages is mind boggling.

Focus was on open data, languages and auditability.

Their loss function is fancy, not sure about the effects

I can’t help but draw a connection with the numerous budget cuts from this admin, including the almost-crisis from last year with NIST.

Just hit my quota with 20x for the first time today…

Had some fun with the wireframe mode, very useful to sketch some interaction concepts

While I agree with the general sentiment that this requires monitoring and study, the abstract is _very_ tendentious, lays multiple hypothesis as facts and doesn’t provide any measurement or alternatives to their preferred solution.

This isn’t a scientific study, it’s a militant manifesto

That's some really poor filing job :D but yeah custom tools is the way to go

Yeah the whole “rationalist” movement is full of those lying fks that use a thin veneer of fallacious logic and self aggrandising discourse to rationalise their hoarding of resources and bottomless greed. They’re very well established in Bay Area and AI world.

Is Sam even a rationalist, or describe his views as rationalist?

Depends.

Would it lead to increasing his wealth?

He was not the founder of OpenAI

nobody was "the" founder of OpenAI. Sam was one of many cofounders, though I don't see how the particulars here are relevant to the point above.

There are several points above:

> wasn't OpenAI the company that was formed as a nonprofit to limit the risks of LLMs?

>> the whole “rationalist” movement is full of those lying fks

>>> Is Sam even a rationalist, or describe his views as rationalist?

The relevancy is that a question of how and why the company was formed isn't fully answered by only talking about his motivations.

I see I see. Makes sense!

Not directly, but very friendly to the movement and people in it.

Looks to me like the rationalist/AI researcher/EA cohort of (admittedly odd) people was quite deliberately hijacked by a sociopath

The movement itself is consistently aligned with Tech Bros interests, the philosophical foundation is interesting, but the movement itself is quite problematic

I'm not reading your suggested implication at all in the other person's comment.

It’s the logical conclusion to his statement, why should Satoshi be treated differently, given more privacy rights, only because he’s a billionaire? Or do you think that making an exception for him is the logical choice here?

No, it's not the logical conclusion of that statement.

You're assuming and extrapolating.

"this particular case" ≠ "never"

Which I addressed with the last sentence, if you think someone dose es special treatment, it’s even worse. What makes him special? That he’s rich?

("dose es" typo of "deserves"?)

I don't have anything to add that isn't already argued in other comments in this thread. I'm just pointing out that your opinions are not logical derivations.

You still have to pay the interest from somewhere. And presumably you'd need to put the coins into some kind of escrow so that the lender can get their money back even if you conveniently forget your private key.

In this case it's not basic stuff. You would need to prove that you own the actual bitcoin or transfer it for it to be collateral on a loan. It's the same as spending it.

Why are you framing this as the only solution? There are many many other ways to secure a guaranty