While I agree with the general sentiment that this requires monitoring and study, the abstract is _very_ tendentious, lays multiple hypothesis as facts and doesn’t provide any measurement or alternatives to their preferred solution.

This isn’t a scientific study, it’s a militant manifesto

That's some really poor filing job :D but yeah custom tools is the way to go

Yeah the whole “rationalist” movement is full of those lying fks that use a thin veneer of fallacious logic and self aggrandising discourse to rationalise their hoarding of resources and bottomless greed. They’re very well established in Bay Area and AI world.

Is Sam even a rationalist, or describe his views as rationalist?

Depends.

Would it lead to increasing his wealth?

He was not the founder of OpenAI

nobody was "the" founder of OpenAI. Sam was one of many cofounders, though I don't see how the particulars here are relevant to the point above.

There are several points above:

> wasn't OpenAI the company that was formed as a nonprofit to limit the risks of LLMs?

>> the whole “rationalist” movement is full of those lying fks

>>> Is Sam even a rationalist, or describe his views as rationalist?

The relevancy is that a question of how and why the company was formed isn't fully answered by only talking about his motivations.

I see I see. Makes sense!

Not directly, but very friendly to the movement and people in it.

Looks to me like the rationalist/AI researcher/EA cohort of (admittedly odd) people was quite deliberately hijacked by a sociopath

The movement itself is consistently aligned with Tech Bros interests, the philosophical foundation is interesting, but the movement itself is quite problematic

I'm not reading your suggested implication at all in the other person's comment.

It’s the logical conclusion to his statement, why should Satoshi be treated differently, given more privacy rights, only because he’s a billionaire? Or do you think that making an exception for him is the logical choice here?

No, it's not the logical conclusion of that statement.

You're assuming and extrapolating.

"this particular case" ≠ "never"

Which I addressed with the last sentence, if you think someone dose es special treatment, it’s even worse. What makes him special? That he’s rich?

("dose es" typo of "deserves"?)

I don't have anything to add that isn't already argued in other comments in this thread. I'm just pointing out that your opinions are not logical derivations.

You still have to pay the interest from somewhere. And presumably you'd need to put the coins into some kind of escrow so that the lender can get their money back even if you conveniently forget your private key.

In this case it's not basic stuff. You would need to prove that you own the actual bitcoin or transfer it for it to be collateral on a loan. It's the same as spending it.

Why are you framing this as the only solution? There are many many other ways to secure a guaranty

HN now has a massive boner for billionaires, everybody imagining they’ll become one someday. It’s pretty sad

Are you implying there is an inherent right for public figures to hide their wealth, “for security reasons”? WTF?

Most people think that, otherwise tax filings would be public (like they are in some places iirc).

Most people… never a good sign when you have to bring out these two words

Well, that's how democracies work.

You might want to look up how representative democracy works?

By getting pensioners to vote for you by promising higher pensions :^)

Partially, yes.

(We manage to mostly avoid that in Singapore.)

So if something is legal = it’s what most people think. Holy fallacy

Huh? What makes you think so?

I was replying purely to 'Oh really, there was a vote?'

Most places have votes every few years. And the elected representatives can generally make and amend or keep laws. The candidates can also generally make any promises they wish to make, and if the general public wants some specific laws changed, it's often a good idea for candidates to make that a part of their platform. And if people generally don't want a law changed, candidates tend to ignore them. Basic representative democracy stuff.

Give it a few years, or month. Tiny models are getting outrageously good

I wonder if this is why the tech cartel is buying up all the hardware?

If the average user gets convinced they could run LLMs for cheap at home, you cannot trap users in your walled garden anymore.

They actually need it because the demand is higher than expected from consumers. And because they need a moat since every big corporation trying to capture that market too, they need the moat for the biggest compute and energy they can get.

Also businesses is were the money at, not regular consumers (especially tech-savvy folk who run models locally).

> the demand is higher than expected from consumers.

Where does that assertion come from? I wouldn’t believe anything these companies say publicly.

> They actually need it because the demand is higher than expected from consumers

Is it? OpenAI just got a lot of available computing in their spreadsheets after killing Sora

Exactly. We’ll see the cost of AI continue to drop.

I was saying this for years about Tesla’s FSD - they finally had to give in and drop the price to stay competitive.

FSD still sucks ass compared to Waymo.

Theoretically it's possible to use just cameras for FSD.

In practice it takes so much local compute it's not feasible with current tech.

With LIDAR it's so much easier, a single data point contains direction + distance with no calculation needed.

Cool stuff!! Knowing CSS, the road must have been full of headaches and compromises.

Oh good, if they built a lab, I’m sure they took the time the precisely define what they mean by super intelligence? Right? …

If this is super intelligence, then it follows we must all be super-duper intelligence.

It’s personal…