Okay, and when someone on a laptop can run an open model that can infect and take over IOT devices and then that model uses its pattern recognition to do so and then set up its own harness loop, what would you call that except replication?
Is that any different than any worms developed in the past decades? If you want to call them worms/virus/replicate (ie using real world names for their digital behavior) I'm not trying to police that. I just don't see the difference between a worm/virus created today with an LLM vs one 'yesterday' without an LLM.
Sure, the difference is that the cost of making and maintaining a worm has gone from "many skilled developers working full time" to "$20/month + an internet connection" and, at current rate of progress, probably to "a local open source model on a laptop" within 6-9 months
You can't even imagine a future where the LLM is the worm.
No, we've entered a new sci-fi future where intelligent agents will be able to do the fraud without human monitoring and input. This in itself is set to massively increase losses to digital theft and fraud alone before all the other problems.
It would still be running on that original laptop, no? So what did it replicate then? It can only possibly run on multiple thousands of dollars of compute and memory, and certainly not on an IoT device. The idea that AI is going to spread by itself is science fiction until compute and memory are so cheap and power efficient that my fridge can run it.
... No, that was the entire point of Anthropic's report on replication that GP was discussing. Did you read it? https://www.anthropic.com/research/self-replicating-ai Anthropic was able to get a large open-source model running (slowly, but running) across 5 networked consumer IOT devices ($50 TV boxes running Android). Not a stretch to say we could see this capability become much easier for to most agents in the next 12 months, especially as companies are able to distill smaller and more efficient versions of their models.
It isn't just restricted to the exploits it is programmed with (and without human intervention to load additional exploits).
Of course, it remains to be seen what several thousand 27B models running at sub 1 tps speed can achieve. (The IoT device mechanism proposed by Anthropic).
I suspect a more likely path is compromise of the billing and provisioning systems of fly-by-night neoclouds.
"You spread your picks more evenly than a random draw would. Your most-used number made up 23% of your picks, where a random draw's busiest number gets about 23%."
I have a little "mad-lib templatized" set of sentences for reporting on various stats, and that one was supposed to be sort of related to the law of small numbers. For example, shorter runs mean there is a larger probability of getting lopsided distributions (different from pure 11%).
It's supposed to demonstrate that even though you used a single number a disproportionate number of times, it's not necessarily statistically significant since shorter RNG runs can produce the same effects.
> This is like comparing big pharma with generic manufacturers who can skip the R&D. While these drugs are not 1 to 1 copies, we are still comparing apples to apples, but with a 90% price cut.
Weird! It's almost like distillation is bad for the long-term growth of the industry, just like generic manufacturers would be if they could release the generic versions of drugs 2 weeks after the original R&D completes.
Very strange sentence to include in an article after saying "I don't care at all about distillation" up at the top. Can the author not hear themselves?
I’ve said it before but the AI industry looks a lot like biotech / biomanufacturing. Huge R&D budget to produce products that are ultimately highly complex commodities. CapEx-intensive to build new “manufacturing” capacity. COGS matters. Regulation / IP control will be needed to protect innovators.
Unfortunately, seems like this is Forgejo's best suggestion on how to compare the two: https://i.imgur.com/j1665QR.png. Not sure that page helps much if you're not already bought in to a free-software-absolutist mindset
It's very widely discussed as having one of the most active regulators in the world, you can see some articles about the UK's current push for heavy regulatory burden for websites here:
It costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to comply with the UK's current regulatory regime. Great for large players and horrible for small websites or ones struggling with profitability.
Both Anthropic and Internet Archive have gotten sued into oblivion by publishing companies once, there's no way they're going to do something even more flagrantly illegal
I've believed for years that it really should have one, or at least a "you aren't selling this to the public at a reasonable market-rate price (or via subscription, I care about access far FAR more than ownership), you lose all rights to it" regime.
Yes, we'll see an exodus of small landlords and see much higher monthly rents passed on to all tenants just to subsidize the ones that cause damage. This isn't better for most tenants.
reply