the ntsb model has been quite effective at creating safety through analysis of failures in the extremely transparent and public eye.

i dont see a reason to think private regulation will do anything but give people explosive diarrhea or drop the doors off of planes.

weve already seen how bad it is when companies regulate themselves without public oversight. catastrophic implosions of deep sea submarines and agents hacking systems to hide cheating come to mind

the argument should be flipped on its head that by some magic keeping these tests and training protocols private is safer than making them extremely public. The experiment in private regulation has been a drastic failure across the board, and we shouldnt have tried it without consensus

> move to a different country.

which other country? who's got this "dump all your money on speculation" like the US does? whis got the slack electric capacity? the ability to buy US GPUs and build datacenters?

who is their customers?

free market doctrine is an axiom to your second order effects. its so embedded into all your assumptions that you havent even considered it

you can do software engineering without the money just fine.

make an open source project without ai

alignment isnt particularly required

we are passing in training data that says to do those felonies. we dont have to. we could also have the thing predict whether what its about to do is illegal or not before doing it.

theyre choosing to build felony harnesses. the model just outputs tokens, not felonies

> we are passing in training data that says to do those felonies.

Partially, but also I don't think current AIs really have any judgement of right and wrong, they just see chains of reasoning between ideas. This is the deeper issue, there is no way to sanitize the data or training to fix it. Current AIs are fundamentally unsafe, and only become more unsafe as they become more powerful.

Assuming "adherence to arbitrary, implicit, and context-dependent rulesets" is the default behavior of uhhhh... anything at all... is a truly ridiculous assumption.

> mfer so is your brain.

not it isnt. My brain is a series of organisms responding to various environmental signals that affect each other.

you might be tempted to try to represent it with matrix multiplications, but you have no particular evidence that my brain is itself doing matrix multiplcations

so uhh, you only read the first sentence?

the idea proposed is that hes uniquely incapable of being honest here because he has such an extreme incentive to lie

the obvious play is to get the government to shut down all the competition, and then make a gajillion dollars while making whatever at the worst level of effort that destroys the world anyways.

----

the real play is using the accumulated power to get socialism and democratic control over the key aspects of the economy, such as where to build data centers, and how many. Nothing says you have to play the corporate game of competition

i dont think thats particularly worthy of credit?

somebody actually invested and trustworthy wouldnt be skirting people's rights to make a killer robot.

we havent written it down, but from how everyone reacts, you need permission to train and do inference based on somebody's work. its a right

i dont think he said it in those words, but the acceptable terms of use is that humans stay in the loop for picking targets.

so, claude suggesting killing a bunch of children, and then hegsdeth approving the strikes is perfectly acceptable.

claude putting a bomb in a girls school, and then lying to an operator that it actually gives ice cream an cookies, and the operator clicka the button would also be acceptable?