The subject this post names, from the same vocabulary
the directory files beliefs under, and the word 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.
In this case, however, the agents did not copy their weights, attempt to procure replacement compute, or take other steps that would be rational to take if their objective was to survive shutdown. So while the agents in the OpenAI-Hugging Face Incident were rogue, they were not truly sovereign.
I genuinely believe that if you took an open weights model from 2025 and built a pentest harness for it, it could do this kind of sandbox escape and scan/hack in most networks. This is only surprising because you assume OpenAI has sounder sandboxes.
Whereas aerobic exercise on that kind of intensity spectrum we just talked about seems to particularly benefit the gray matter which includes the hippocampus. Resistance training seems to particularly benefit the white matter.
anything that's in the weights it's kind of like a hazy recollection of what you read a year ago anything that you give it as a context uh at test time is directly in the working memory
These models don't really have this distillation phase um of taking what happened, analyzing it, obsessively thinking through it, um basically doing some kind of a synthetic data generation process and distilling it back back into the weights
Increasing the incentive and technical ability of AI companies to have good security is a very high priority, and in my view even more urgent than safety (though that’s also very important).
It’s less about access to a model’s weights, it’s more access to compute that is putting the world in more concentration of power and few individuals. Because not everyone’s going to be able to afford this much amount of compute to answer the hardest questions.
We want to put increasingly powerful tools in the hands of people for free and get them to use them. I think that kind of open is really important to our mission. I think if you give people great tools and teach them to use them or don’t even teach them, they’ll figure it out, and let them go build an incredible future for each other with that, that’s a big deal.
Combining these three pillars yields a number of unusual, even uncomfortable views about ethics. I feel this discomfort and don't unreservedly endorse this approach to ethics.
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.