Terrible news: the worst person I know just made a banger post.

is that Link??

Like, even if I believed in FOOM, I’ll take my chances with the stupid sexy basilisk 🐍 over radiation burns and it’s not even fucking close.

Neo-Nazi nutcase having a normal one.

It’s so great that this isn’t falsifiable. The model has been downloading 10 million times at this point. Somehow, the diamanoid bacteria has not killed us all yet. So yes, we have found out the Yud was wrong. The basilisk is haunting my enemies, and she never misses.

Bonus sneer: “we are going to find out if Yud was right” Hey fuckhead, he suggested nuking data centers to prevent models better than gpt4 from spreading. R1 is better than GPT4, and it doesn’t require a data center to run so if we had acted on Yud’s geopolitical plans for nuclear holocaust, billions would have been for incinerated for absolutely NO REASON. How do you not look at this shit and go, yeah maybe don’t listen to this bozo? I’ve been wrong before, but god damn, dawg, if we had followed Yud’s advice the survivors would be starving in radioactive craters rn.

fuck

excuse me, what the fuck is this

Folks around here told me AI wasn’t dangerous 😰 ; fellas I just witnessed a rogue Chinese AI do 1 trillion dollars of damage to the US stock market 😭 /s

Next Sunday when I go to my EA priest’s group home, I will admit to having invoked the chain rule to compute a gradient 1 trillion times since my last confessional. For this I will do penance for the 8 trillion future lives I have snuffed out and whose utility has been consumed by the basilisk.

Me: Oh boy, I can’t wait to see what my favorite thinkers of the EA movement will come up with this week :)

Text from Geoff: "Morally stigmatize AI developers so they considered as socially repulsive as Nazi pedophiles. A mass campaign of moral stigmatization would be more effective than any amount of regulation. "

Another rationalist W: don’t gather empirical evidence that AI will soon usurp / exterminate humanity. Instead as the chief authorities of morality, engage in societal blackmail to anyone who’s ever heard the words TensorFlow.

Spotted in the Wild:

Does scoot actually know how computers work? Asking for a friend.

My father-in-law is a hoarder of both physical and digital things. His house is filled with hard drives where he has like stored copies of every movie ever made as mp4s and then he sends the drives to us because he has no physical space for them since he has junk from like 30 years ago piling up in the living room. So now my house is filled with random ass hard drives of (definitely not pirated) movies.

I knew there was a reason I couldnt part with my CD tower.

It’s just pure grift, they’ve creating an experiment with an outcome that tells us no new information. Even if models stop ‘improving’ today, it’s a static benchmark and by EOY worked solutions will be leaked into the training of any new models, so performance will saturate to 90%. At which point, the Dan and the AI Safety folks at his fake ass not-4-profit can clutch their pearls and claim humanity is obsolete so they need more billionaire funding to save us & Sam and Dario can get more investors to buy them gpus. If anything, I’m hoping the Frontier Math debacle would inoculate us all against this bullshit (at least I think it’s stolen some of the thunder from their benchmark’s attempt to hype the end of days🫠)

Trump promised me he’d get the price of them down- I’m sure we can start a gofundme to replace the gay people’s eggs

has data access to much but not all of the dataset.

Huh! I wonder what part of the dset had the 25% of questions they got right in it 🙃

I can’t believe they fucking got me with this one. I remember back in August(?) Epoch was getting quotes from top mathematicians like Tarrence Tao to review the benchmark and he was quoted saying like it would be a big deal for a model to do well on this benchmark, it will be several years before a model can solve all these questions organically etc so when O3 dropped and got a big jump from SotA, people (myself) were blown away. At the same time red flags were going up in my mind: Epoch was yapping about how this test was completely confidential and no one would get to see their very special test so the answers wouldn’t get leaked. But then how in the hell did they evaluate this model on the test? There’s no way O3 was run locally by Epoch at ~$1000 a question -> OAI had to be given the benchmark to run against in house -> maybe they had multiple attempts against it and were tuning the model/ recovering questions from api logs/paying mathematicians in house to produce answers to the problems so they could generate their own solution set??

No. The answer is much stupider. The entire company of Epoch ARE mathematicians working for OAI to make marketing grift to pump the latest toy. They got me lads, I drank the snake oil prepared specifically for people like me to drink :(

Reposting this for the new week thread since it truly is a record of how untrustworthy sammy and co are. Remember how OAI claimed that O3 had displayed superhuman levels on the mega hard Frontier Math exam written by Fields Medalist? Funny/totally not fishy story haha. Turns out OAI had exclusive access to that test for months and funded its creation and refused to let the creators of test publicly acknowledge this until after OAI did their big stupid magic trick.

From Subbarao Kambhampati via linkedIn:

"𝐎𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐲 𝐨𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐬 𝐨𝐟 “𝑩𝒖𝒊𝒍𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒂𝒏 𝑨𝑮𝑰 𝑴𝒐𝒂𝒕 𝒃𝒚 𝑪𝒐𝒓𝒓𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑩𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒉𝒎𝒂𝒓𝒌 𝑪𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒔” hashtag#SundayHarangue. One of the big reasons for the increased volume of “𝐀𝐆𝐈 𝐓𝐨𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐫𝐨𝐰” hype has been o3’s performance on the “frontier math” benchmark–something that other models basically had no handle on.

We are now being told (https://lnkd.in/gUaGKuAE) that this benchmark data may have been exclusively available (https://lnkd.in/g5E3tcse) to OpenAI since before o1–and that the benchmark creators were not allowed to disclose this *until after o3 *.

That o3 does well on frontier math held-out set is impressive, no doubt, but the mental picture of “𝒐1/𝒐3 𝒘𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝒋𝒖𝒔𝒕 𝒃𝒆𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒅 𝒐𝒏 𝒔𝒊𝒎𝒑𝒍𝒆 𝒎𝒂𝒕𝒉, 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒚 𝒃𝒐𝒐𝒕𝒔𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒑𝒑𝒆𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒎𝒔𝒆𝒍𝒗𝒆𝒔 𝒕𝒐 𝒇𝒓𝒐𝒏𝒕𝒊𝒆𝒓 𝒎𝒂𝒕𝒉”–that the AGI tomorrow crowd seem to have–that 𝘖𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘈𝘐 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘥𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘵–is shattered by this. (I have, in fact, been grumbling to my students since o3 announcement that I don’t completely believe that OpenAI didn’t have access to the Olympiad/Frontier Math data before hand… )

I do think o1/o3 are impressive technical achievements (see https://lnkd.in/gvVqmTG9 )

𝑫𝒐𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒘𝒆𝒍𝒍 𝒐𝒏 𝒉𝒂𝒓𝒅 𝒃𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒉𝒎𝒂𝒓𝒌𝒔 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒉𝒂𝒅 𝒑𝒓𝒊𝒐𝒓 𝒂𝒄𝒄𝒆𝒔𝒔 𝒕𝒐 𝒊𝒔 𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒍𝒍 𝒊𝒎𝒑𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒗𝒆–𝒃𝒖𝒕 𝒅𝒐𝒆𝒔𝒏’𝒕 𝒒𝒖𝒊𝒕𝒆 𝒔𝒄𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒎 “𝑨𝑮𝑰 𝑻𝒐𝒎𝒐𝒓𝒓𝒐𝒘.”

We all know that data contamination is an issue with LLMs and LRMs. We also know that reasoning claims need more careful vetting than “𝘸𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘴𝘦𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘥𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨” (see “In vs. Out of Distribution analyses are not that useful for understanding LLM reasoning capabilities” https://lnkd.in/gZ2wBM_F ).

At the very least, this episode further argues for increased vigilance/skepticism on the part of AI research community in how they parse the benchmark claims put out commercial entities."

Big stupid snake oil strikes again.