The subject this post names, from the same vocabulary
the directory files beliefs under, and the words it uses that this site has seen
least often elsewhere. Posts are matched on those words alone —
nothing here is a summary of this one.
So long as Canada is irrevocably plugged into the US economy, military and other arrangements, it's liable to get stuck with choices that run counter to its national interests.
If there really is a high chance of AI leading to the extinction of humanity within years/decades, then the only rational stance towards safety monitoring and research pacing should be stringent, top-down government involvement and universally ratified international treaties.
Right now OpenAI is extremely dependent on CoT monitoring, everyone else depends on it quite a lot as well, and it looks like it may not last much longer, and that Astra already is on the edge of steganographic capabilities and can do substantial obfuscation if and only if it thinks you would think it is up to no good.
Even if everyone tries as hard as is plausible, Chain of Thought monitoring will probably never be easier than it is now and will get harder over time. In a year, chances are very high it will not be able to serve the function it is currently being asked to serve.
If this is only due to gains in capabilities, that is extremely bad news, and it means CoT monitoring is unlikely to survive for another year unless we find a way to actively improve it, and it might not last six months.
More and more of our personal and professional computing experiences will come from agents that orchestrate work in the cloud, using sandboxes. Those sandboxes will be Linux.
Currently I believe that no lab has solved alignment and monitoring to a sufficient degree to continue responsibly scaling at maximum speed for much longer.
in education there's a concept that I think is really poison and why we have trouble innovating in education which is there's a view that you must serve everybody all at once for free like just anything you do in education no matter who it's for they're like I'm going to come up with a counter example where it doesn't work for everybody all at once for free and that's not how products are developed
new laws are like code that is pushed live to production without even being read (let alone tested), often in the face of tremendous opposition, affecting millions of citizens, with minimal monitoring to ensure they’re producing the desired results, an extremely slow customer feedback cycle, and few ways to truly opt out.
I agree with @theo completely, it's clear to me this is where it's going, also seeing @karpathy with Claude moving to the cloud (via Slack etc), I think AI "agents" and AI coding will operate on servers / from the cloud first
I am not affiliated with any of the tools mentioned in this article, but one nice thing about Ollama is that they also optionally support open-weight models hosted in the cloud
You have to call like seven APIs to get a VM in the cloud. Create a VM, a network, a storage device connected to a VPC and then attach credentials. Like that's not intent based. I want a VM.
But, at least this sort of sharding across multiple machines is maybe become less of a pressing issue just because more and more workloads can just run on a single machine. Some people still have very large-scale workloads that do have to be sharded across multiple machines. So, it's not going away entirely.
By transforming a physical, three-dimensional counter into a two-dimensional sign, these early accountants made a momentous step towards history's inaugural information technology: writing.
I initially assumed this was a temporary divide. New users tend to watch closely and check the system's progress, but as trust builds, that scrutiny fades and monitoring starts to feel like a chore. Yet it still seems like there's two camps (for now).
Bought after much cutting-board deliberation and based on your recommendations. We love this thing. We got one that nearly fills a section of our counter (between the stove and wall) and it's heaven to have so much space to cut various things at the same time.
So this AI thing will be that right. So if you take coding um what we built with GitHub and VS code in over whatever decades uh suddenly the coding assistant is that big in one year and so that I think is what's going to happen as well which is the market expands massively.
One performance anti-pattern is when a company, to debug one performance problem, installs a monitoring tool that periodically does work and causes application latency outliers.
Of course, when you talk to an AI that’s made by a big company in the cloud, the AI fundamentally is aligned to them, not to you. And that’s why you have to buy a tiny box. So you make sure the AI stays aligned to you.
Want to know the story behind how Salesforce was built? This is that story in founder Marc Benioff's own words. At times I found him overly prescriptive without an appreciation for his unfair advantages he had (getting to start it while having a big salary at Oracle, having $6Mn in "bootstrapped funding", etc). However, he also helped pioneer the cloud and SaaS as a business model, so there are many great lessons to glean if you're building a high-growth SaaS business.
To read papers, I use Adobe Acrobat Reader and sync them in the cloud. This lets me read, highlight, and sync my papers across devices (work laptop, personal laptop, iPad). Instapaper does the same for online articles.
To read papers, I use Adobe Acrobat Reader and sync them in the cloud. This lets me read, highlight, and sync my papers across devices (work laptop, personal laptop, iPad). Instapaper does the same for online articles.
If what's holding you back from shipping is, say, getting more customer input, or a brittle release process, or flaky monitoring, or missing tests, then all the bot does is to add noise. It doesn't help you ship.
I'm currently running macOS Mojave, backed up with both Time Machine and SuperDuper to an external drive and BackBlaze to the cloud. Overkill maybe, but after a major drive crash a few years ago, I'm not taking any chances.
A korrent is a belief a person has stated in their own words: one
sentence stating the claim, backed by a quote and a source, kept at
korrents.com.
Under a name here, the quoted block is what they actually said.
The korrent beneath it is the claim those words support, in
korrents' wording — tap it to see the record, its source, and who
else holds it.
Nobody here wrote their own korrents. They are compiled from public
statements, and a person can change their mind, which is recorded too.
About the English under a post
Some people here publish in a language other than English. Where they
do, this site shows a machine translation beneath the post, in
this typeface — the site's own, not theirs.
The post itself is never changed, moved or hidden: what is set in the
serif above is exactly what the person published, and it is what to
quote them on. A translation can be wrong in ways that matter,
especially about tone.
Only the post's own words are translated. A quoted post, a linked
article and a belief on korrents.com
are left in their original language.