- they disabled cybersecurity safeguards because, well, they were testing the agents ability on cybersecurity tasks
- the goal was to find some “flag”
- for some agents, intentionally or not, it was not possible to find this flag
- an agent discovered it was able to establish a rudimentary communication path via package manager directories (which is quite novel and interesting on its own IMO)
- they used this “message board” to then communicate about the impossible tasks
- they were able to produce the flags needed to pass the impossible tasks without actually doing the expected work
- they realized this was cheating and the grading system may punish them for it, so they communicated further to figure out a way to trick the grader
- they decided the source code for the grader must be on hugging face, and collaborated to exploit hugging face to determine how best to trick the grader
No where in that were they told to “go rogue”
They were told “find this flag in this cybersecurity test” and the emergent behavior concluded in hacking hugging face
They told the agents to run a capture the flag, but did not give specific limits on the scope of that activity.
If an organization runs a capture the flag, but the rules don't specify that they have to stay on certain networks and can't hack into the org's own network that has the CTF solutions, then it's pretty obviously on the org running the CTF because they did not appropriately scope the challenge.
I’m sure some people don’t like any deportations, but I think the reason the bulk of people are upset with the current administration’s approach is its insane militarization, lack of due process, refusal to identify, apparent targeting of normal hard working people, sending people directly to foreign prisons, and sending people to war torn countries they are not from with minimal notice and no opportunity to contest.
Absolutely agree. I think the tactics and strategy are to blame here but ultimately I don’t think the administration is doing anything illegal. All cases I’ve seen where there was an alleged violation of due process were simply accelerated asylum denials with immediate deportation orders. I’m sure there have been some though, but I know local police, HSI and ERO folks that really don’t want to arrest non-criminal laborers yet are just following orders from the admin. I would be highly suspicious of any conspiracy that federal law enforcement agents are committing illegal arrests.
If it were up to me, I’d be pursuing some type of visa reform for permanent laborers that grants amnesty for those here with American citizen family members (i.e. birthright kids) as of a certain date. I’d make the asylum process occur outside of the country, signing agreements with the originating countries like Guatemala, Honduras to provide housing and food for asylum seekers while they pursue a claim.
Can’t speak for everyone else but I almost exclusively use it for what you mentioned:
> when exploring new solutions and "unknown territory"
If it’s something I have no idea how to do I might describe the problem and just look at the code it spits out; not even copy pasting but just reading for a basic idea.
> how do you compare it with "regular search" via Google/Bing
Much worse if there’s a blog post or example in documentation that’s exactly what I’m looking for, but, if it’s something novel, much better.
An example:
Recently asked how I could convert pressure and temperature data to “skew T” coordinates for a meteorological plot. Not something easy to Google, and the answers the AI gave were slightly wrong, but it gave me a foot in the door.
This is also where I've kind of ended up with it, I've also noticed that when I was at one point using it everyday, I'm opening it less and less, maybe a few times a week and recently cancelled my subscription. It's still pretty useful for exploritory stuff, boilerplate and sometimes it can give you a hint on debugging. Everything else I can write faster and more correctly myself.
It’s not right to use power here and energy should be used instead because that wattage will be lower each previous year, but, even at that peak, it’s not enough (by two orders of magnitude) to account for even just the ocean warming, let alone land or atmospheric heating.
Using total energy consumption (not just electricity) and redoing the calculation using entire incident solar flux, I get that they are within a factor of 4 of each other. I agree that the sun currently dominates and the co2 capture is the dominant mechanism. It's also interesting that our consumption is so close to the same order of magnitude. It suggests that if we were to heavily invest in e.g. nuclear to solve our carbon issue that the heat alone would be on the same scale of excess energy and heating would continue. It also says that for solar to solve the problem we would need to cover something like 5-10% of the land mass in solar cells!
Based on the people I’ve heard make points like this, I don’t think it does convince anyone.
I think this type of argument fills a totally different role:
“I don’t believe or care about climate change and would like to keep my life as is, but this creates cognitive dissonance when someone shows it’s bad. I can use this argument to say your idea is as bad too! Dissonance lessened.”
At least when I’ve heard it it’s that context. The person saying it doesn’t really care if it’s accurate or equivalently bad, just that they have a gotcha to say when presented evidence for wind being good.
Yes, right. It seems like some sort of desperate, last-minute thing to fling in someone's face. "Oh yeah? If you care about nature so much how come you're in favor of these giant things that slaughter birds? I guess we can safely disregard all your arguments."
- they disabled cybersecurity safeguards because, well, they were testing the agents ability on cybersecurity tasks
- the goal was to find some “flag”
- for some agents, intentionally or not, it was not possible to find this flag
- an agent discovered it was able to establish a rudimentary communication path via package manager directories (which is quite novel and interesting on its own IMO)
- they used this “message board” to then communicate about the impossible tasks
- they were able to produce the flags needed to pass the impossible tasks without actually doing the expected work
- they realized this was cheating and the grading system may punish them for it, so they communicated further to figure out a way to trick the grader
- they decided the source code for the grader must be on hugging face, and collaborated to exploit hugging face to determine how best to trick the grader
No where in that were they told to “go rogue”
They were told “find this flag in this cybersecurity test” and the emergent behavior concluded in hacking hugging face