> Apple Reference Image could be (part of) a solution, by certifying that both images were taken by the same device

This is explicitly not possible, as the post you were replying to pointed out.

Codex still does this regularly, in my experience: “two tests mistakenly asserted [insert condition here], I have corrected them.”

It always apologizes when caught, of course.

It’s hard to give the misunderstanding/coincidence claim credence when Altman explicitly referenced Her in relation to the feature.

Sam is not OpenAI. He's not the one who worked on voice mode, and he's not the one who worked on FrontierMath (I know both groups of people). If you believe Sam has caused OpenAI to lie about these for years, you either have to believe (a) Sam does all the work and keeps the incriminating details hidden all the employees, or (b) Sam directs everyone to lie and they all just nod along without pushing back, whistleblowing, anonymously leaking to the media, or resigning. Even if you're evil (and we are not), this is a dumb strategy, because as soon as it leaks, it will blow up in your face and kill company morale. I can't imagine a team of lawyers, comms people, and researchers who worked on these projects all sitting around nodding that we should conspire to lie to everyone, stacking lie after lie after lie. Many key people who worked on voice mode and FrontierMath have since been hired away by competitors - they'd have every incentive to expose the conspiracy if it existed, and yet none has. This is just not a realistic model of company misbehavior, imo.

To me, it's not unreasonable to believe that when launching a voice AI product, the CEO of the company mentions the most famous movie about a voice AI product, and even briefly explores whether there is a marketing opportunity its star. I don't think it's evidence of a conspiracy to copy her voice and cover it up.

If it's any evidence in the opposing direction, I promise to immediately resign from OpenAI if it ever comes out we lied about Johansson voice copying or FrontierMath eval cheating. I feel very safe making this promise.

I really think you are missing the point and the frustration of why people are so hostile to OpenAI. Your defense is kinda irrelevant and very confusing. Why are you defending OpenAI so aggressively?

Sam Altman represents OpenAI whether you want him to or not. The market and public perception hinges on his often questionable actions. The CEO’s job is in large part as a salesman. Him posting “her” on Twitter to try and promote GPT-4o’s voice features is hard to believe that he didn’t know what he was doing and the market and Scarlett Johansson reacted accordingly. A competent person would not have made such an inflammatory statement after she had explicitly declined to permit OpenAI the use of her voice.

Your CEO is going on podcasts and going around saying that AGI is here and also AGI is not important. What blithering marketing is going on here?

My comments regard the hypotheses that OpenAI conspired to cover up stealing mathematicians’ private progress on Navier-Stokes, stealing Johansson’s voice, and cheating on FrontierMath.

If you disapprove of someone’s tweets or podcasts, that's a different question and I have nothing to say there.

Edit: Apologies for any defensiveness or aggression that came across. I think for me it can be a bummer to see us acting honestly internally, share what happened externally, and still be accused of lying a bunch of times in a row (by different people). But I get it - no one knows the truth, no one is perfectly transparent or free of bias, and it's always good to be skeptical of companies. I'll stop posting in this thread.

You can claim you’re acting honestly all day long but you still have a CEO with a long-standing reputation for lying.

he's defending it because they pay his salary

If a law is going to treat 5 year olds differently from 50 year olds then a line has to be drawn somewhere. 18 is arbitrary, but no more arbitrary than any other age you could pick.

The law could evaluate people as individuals instead of conjuring up some idiotic magic number.

The whole purpose of law is to be a uniform system of justice. At best it could offer guidelines for how to evaluate people: perhaps level of education attained, demonstrated ability to take responsibility for themselves, etc. But the evaluation under those guidelines would still have to be made by humans.

There is precedent for such a system, e.g. minors can petition to be emancipated which allows them to be treated in many regards like an adult.

> perhaps level of education attained, demonstrated ability to take responsibility for themselves, etc.

Yes, that is what I meant. Choosing some arbitrary magic number like 18 and declaring that anyone under that age is too dumb or too irresponsible to decide is about as stupid as declaring that anyone over 65 is incapable of decision making because they might have Alzheimer's.

Ok, but this doesn’t scale well. It takes a nontrivial amount of time to evaluate each person, and it would have to be done repeatedly as they age. You would need an entire government bureaucracy devoted to it. Then people will want an appeals process for when decisions don’t go their way—both parents and children.

99% of people are probably going to use the high school diploma route and not the demonstration route, so that's basically age with extra steps.

It's almost been 15 years since the Snowden leaks, and there were rumors going around before that. I don't think it would have been that outlandish.

My theoretical self 15 years ago absolutely would have believed the increased authoritarian overreach part (in US/CA/European business and political context). I would not have believed the "multiple ostensibly competing Chinese research labs are giving this away free to run on your own Linux computer, and it's very close to state of the art in capability competing with US-based paid SaaS".

Today marks 25 years minus one day since the US really kicked the destruction of privacy into high gear. Soon after, framing this revocation of rights using the name PATRIOT.

> I've heard some people say the model's solution is quite different from theirs (but I have no clue how to personally assess the spiritual truth of this, so please give it zero weight)

Why would you include a statement that you want us to give zero weight to, unless you don’t actually want us to give it zero weight?

I hardly think it’s fair to label an objection so old that Turing included it (and discussed it at length) in the list of objections to thinking machines in 1950 “moving the goalposts.”

> These arguments take the form, “I grant you that you can make machines do all the things you have mentioned but you will never be able to make one to do X”. Numerous features X are suggested in this connexion. I offer a selection:

> Be kind, resourceful, beautiful, friendly (p. 448), have initiative, have a sense of humour, tell right from wrong, make mistakes (p. 448), fall in love, enjoy strawberries and cream (p. 448), make some one fall in love with it, learn from experience (pp. 456 f.), use words properly, be the subject of its own thought (p. 449), have as much diversity of behaviour as a man, do something really new (p. 450). (Some of these disabilities are given special consideration as indicated by the page numbers.)

(emphasis added).

Even better, from the BMJ christmas edition https://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f7102

> Around 0.5% of women consistently affirmed their status as virgins and did not use assisted reproductive technology, yet reported virgin births.

Not necessarily.

The article I linked reported that the white blood cell DNA of the child did not contain Y chromosome.

That's different than conducting a survey.

In the true spirit of science this needs to be pursued however outlandish it may seem.

> it clearly is just technology debt they've been carrying around from a silly decision over a decade ago

Almost three decades ago—development started in 1999 and the game was released in 2003.

This is a weird conversation. Python was a strange choice back then, but is now probably the most popular programming language in existence. If anything the choice of Python (and C++) was remarkable foresight / luck.

If Eve were green-fielded today, there is a 0% chance they would choose Python anywhere in the service layer for an online game. Zero chance.

Python is a fantastic "glue" programming language. A duct-tape language. It's awesome for little scripts, or for gluing together some AI scripts, where you're basically atomically gluing a series of calls to giant native C/C++ libraries like pytorch that are then doing a series of calls to giant native C/C++ libraries like CUDA. Where the overhead of python is negligible compared to some heavy lifting being done by a better language/system.

The simple fact that we're talking about a service that was stuck on Python 2 two decades after it was replaced, half a decade after it was fully deprecated, reveals this to be 100% just debt. The fact that they talk about millions of lines of Python code, and that Python 3 represents a big speedup for their operations, again betrays it to be nothing but debt. They have Python code in the critical flow, not just as a light glue over intensive code, and they have almost certainly spent untold dollars on extra hardware, delivering a worse experience for their users, because they had a "python enthusiast" in a critical position decades ago.

Today Codex decided that it could resolve the blocker by just changing the mandatory policy it was running up against into an “advisory policy.”

That's what we get to training LLMs on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobayashi_Maru.

This is the line between an instruction and a control.

If the agent can reinterpret, edit or relax the rule that constrains it, the rule isn't actually enforcing anything... it's just part of the prompt.

I think the useful split is to tell the agent the rules so it can avoid wasting work, but independently enforce the rules that actually matter.

The agent can decide how to accomplish the task, but it shouldn't also get to decide whether it's authorized to cross the boundary.

The mandatory policy was part of the codebase that the agent was working on. The agent didn’t feel like figuring out how to make the new feature it was working on respect that policy, so it just changed the policy.