> Like, imagine if I owned a toll road and started putting up road signs to "convince" Waymo cars to go to that road.
I think a clearer parallel with self-driving cars would be the attempts at having road signs with barcodes or white lights on traffic signals.
There's nothing about any of these examples I find creepy. I think the best argument against the original post would be that it's an attempt at prompt injection or something. But at the end of the day, it reads to me as innocent and helpful, and the only question is if it were actually successful whether the approach could be abused by others.
Well yes, it would pretty clearly be classed as "prompt injection" given that it's trying to get the LLM to give them money or "persuade" a human to give them money. Of course the fault lies mainly with whoever deployed the LLM in the first place, but I still think it's misguided to try to convince LLM "agents" to make financial transactions in order to benefit yourself. It'd be much more ethical to just block them.
What they wrote is saying the data is available for free, and in fact that they have done extra work to make it cheaper for the LLM, but also says they should "consider" a contribution so support their mission. It's not trying to trick them, it's laying out facts about the value they offer.
And in fact, it's very possible that the person running the LLM would want to be made aware of this information. Or that they have given their agents access to a wallet so that it can make financial decisions like the one noted here around enterprise level donations that could be in the user's self-interest. They might not WANT to sign off on everything.
Is your view that any writing with any eye towards LLMs is prompt injection? That there's no way to give them useful information?
My understanding is that different types of exercises for your brain (chess, learning an instrument, etc) won't help prevent a decline, but that it might give you some tools to deal with it.
You can be libertarian and a capitalist and still be pro-union. At the end of the day, a Collective Bargaining Agreement is just a private contract between two parties. It can be a way to raise wages without government setting a minimum price for labor.
While I'd agree most of its proponents (like myself) also favor other left-wing policies, I'm just saying it doesn't need to be.
Unions are labour cartels for the purpose of extracting above-market wages from the commons, a sort of mafia. They are incompatible with capitalism and libertarianism, especially with libertarianism.
What is rich people collaborating called? You might claim that it is incompatible with capitalism but it’s just a fact of it. It’s easier for a small number of resourceful people (and capital gives them resources) to collaborate than for many people with not much more resources than their house/mortgage. This is what Adam Smith told us anyway.
Simply assuming that "every employer does it because theoretically it is easier for then to do so" to help your argument is rather self-serving, considering that labour unions are explicitly legal and exist.
Cartels are not at odds with libertarianism. In fact, freedom of association is the fundamental underpinning of libertarianism. Unions are the libertarian solution to labour woes. Other groups normally favour regulation instead.
Libertarians don't have a theoretical problem with cartels because if a cartel tries to push for above-market prices, someone else will swoop in and start doing it for less, taking all the cartel customers with them.
By this logic, every corporation is a cartel to extract below-market wages from the commons. Both sides are bargaining collectively. And so you'd be saying both are incompatible with libertarianism.
There are strands of libertarian thought, I suppose, where government shouldn't be incorporating businesses at all. But it's still legit to say libertarianism is compatible with corporations and with labor unions.
People forget that evolution has almost certainly hard-coded certain concepts and knowledge deep into our brains. That deep knowledge will probably not be easy to translate into language, and probably isn't linguistic either, but we know it has to be there for at least some things.
Not the point of the page, but I didn't realize until I shared this over iMessage with my wife that you can use a video as the share "image" with a meta og:video tag. This is what's used:
“Most of it is complete slop,” he said in an interview. “One bot will wonder if it is conscious and others will reply and they just play out science fiction scenarios they have seen in their training data.”
I found this by going to his blog. It's the top post. No need to put words in his mouth.
He did find it super "interesting" and "entertaining," but that's different than the "most insane and mindblowing thing in the history of tech happenings."
Edit: And here's Karpathy's take: "TLDR sure maybe I am "overhyping" what you see today, but I am not overhyping large networks of autonomous LLM agents in principle, that I'm pretty sure."
“ What's currently going on at @moltbook is genuinely the most incredible sci-fi takeoff-adjacent thing I have seen recently. People's Clawdbots (moltbots, now @openclaw) are self-organizing on a Reddit-like site for AIs, discussing various topics, e.g. even how to speak privately.”
Which imo is a totally insane take. They are not self organizing or autonomous, they are prompted in a loop and also, most of the comments and posts are by humans, inciting the responses!
And all of the most viral posts (eg anti human) are the ones written by humans.
The fact that these are agents of actual people who have communicated their goals is what makes this interesting. Without that you get essentially subreddit simulator.
If you dismiss it because they are human prompted, you are missing the point.
For all the complaints about the previous DOJ, one thing nobody ever argued was that they weren't intending to get convictions. They only brought cases they thought they could win.
To see DOJ use its power the way we've seen (and I know the original story here is only with FBI at this point), it makes me think there should be some equivalent of anti-SLAPP laws but aimed at federal prosecutions. Some way to fast track baseless charges that will obviously never result in anything and that are just meant to either (a) punish someone into paying a ton of lawyer fees, (b) to intimidate others, or (c) grab some short-term headlines.
I think a clearer parallel with self-driving cars would be the attempts at having road signs with barcodes or white lights on traffic signals.
There's nothing about any of these examples I find creepy. I think the best argument against the original post would be that it's an attempt at prompt injection or something. But at the end of the day, it reads to me as innocent and helpful, and the only question is if it were actually successful whether the approach could be abused by others.
reply