A new crop of AI labs are focused on recursive self-improvement — but the goal is proving elusive.

RSI is the new AGI — and it's just as hard to pin down

RSI is the new AGI — and it's just as hard to pin down

The AI recommended making the storage bucket public, or setting cloud file storage to "anyone with the link." When challenged, it justified this by saying every company does it.

the continued flood of AI reports has basically made the security list almost entirely unmanageable

AI detected bugs are pretty much by definition not secret, and treating them on some private list is a waste of time for everybody involved

Agents just made the cost of not doing it catastrophic.

It uses far more permissions than it should have, more than a human would, because of the speed of scale and intent.

The agent itself is the attack surface.

Every attacker went for the credential, not the model.

The technique gets stronger if more safety is added, since it gets more supportive against communities like LGBT (Alignment), which makes it highly novel.

The 4 GB Gemini Nano weights file is information stored in the user's terminal equipment. The user did not consent. The user has not requested any service that strictly requires a 4 GB on-device LLM. Chrome is functional without the file.

Under the California Consumer Privacy Act, the absence of a notice-at-collection covering this specific category of pre-staged software puts Google's CCPA notice posture in question [12].

The legal analysis is the same one I gave for the Anthropic case. The environmental analysis is new. At Chrome's scale, the climate bill for one model push, paid in atmospheric CO2 by the entire planet, is between six thousand and sixty thousand tonnes of CO2-equivalent emissions, depending on how many devices receive the push.

eleven of us who think he'sguilty

. He was picked up for knife-fighting. I think they said he stabbed somebody in the arm

Oh. Well . . . (Long pause) I just think he's guilty. I thoughtit was obvious. I mean nobody proved otherwise

these two challenges are fundamentally distinct: the former relies on fuzzy semantic planning, while the latter demands strict logical constraints

Mr. Trump will doubtless claim that only he was willing to use America’s military reach to achieve a goal his last four predecessors deemed too risky.

Thinking, Fast and Slow is a 2011 popular science book by psychologist Daniel Kahneman. The book's main thesis is a differentiation between two modes of thought: "System 1" is fast, instinctive and emotional; "System 2" is slower, more deliberative, and more logical.

Avoid using a 1 unless specifically instructed to do so in the schedules or in the CSM. If youfind that it is absolutely necessary, never use it as the final digit of a cutter because youmight have to use a zero in the cutter for the next resource. Instead, add another digit.And finally, avoid using a 2 if at all possible. Using a 2 can force the use of a 1, which canforce the use of a 0.

Phenomenologyexplains that consciousness, treated as an object, limits this pretension: human subjectivity is thefoundation of all scientific knowledge. Therefore, there is a logical error in trying to explain thefoundation through what it has founded.

an object-oriented approach to data modelling – where data is described in terms of classes, attributes, and associations

to break up methods into logical paragraphs internally.

However, there is fatal flaw to this argument—as an overall macro strategyfor reducing poverty, it will be ineffective unless we also increase the overallquantity and quality of opportunities, particularly job opportunities, in society.In other words, by providing an individual with greater education, we havemade them more competitive in the job market, but only at the expense ofsomeone else. In this sense, the strategy is played as a zero-sum game.

That's an important remark. find /path/to/ -iname '*.gif' -o -iname '*.jpg' -print0 will only print the jpg files! You need brackets here: find /path/to/ \( -iname '*.gif' -o -iname '*.jpg' \) -print0

In the words of the cartoonist Dick Guindon:Writing is nature's way of letting you know how sloppy your thinking is.

In fact, every timeone combines and recordsfacts in accordance withestablished logical process-es, the creative aspect ofthinking is concerned onlywith the selection of thedata and the process to beemployed, and the manip-ulation thereafter is repeti-tive in nature and hence afit matter to be relegatedto the machines

Otto Karl Wilhelm Neurath (German: [ˈnɔʏʀaːt]; 10 December 1882 – 22 December 1945) was an Austrian-born philosopher of science, sociologist, and political economist. He was also the inventor of the ISOTYPE method of pictorial statistics and an innovator in museum practice. Before he fled his native country in 1934, Neurath was one of the leading figures of the Vienna Circle.

Shouldn't the #descendants method be the reverse of #ancestors?

If students were given a tablet for school, they will never pay attention in class.

One example is a program that amounts to a whitelist for VIPs on Facebook, allowing some of the users most likely to spread misinformation to break Facebook’s rules without facing consequences.

Also the problem becomes even worse if you multiple api/resource servers and have to decide in each load function which credentials should be exposed to which server.

Assuming wonderful support, this is how the logic would play out…

If you take it to it's logical conclusion you'd only accept the correct types for boolean, integer, decimal, etc. columns, which is obviously crazy.

More often than not, the expression ‘taken to its logical conclusion’ serves to point up the absurdity of a piece of reasoning we come across.

I need a holiday to get over a holiday

I wish there were no Mondays

The golden standard I suppose is set by the rhyme: There is a hole in my bucket, dear Liza, dear Liza. Of course, fixing it requires the use of the bucket at some stage, and so the loop closes.

Yes, i'm trying to find the union of two relations

where_values_hash.reduce(&:or)

scope :deck_access, ->(user) { includes(:deck_permissions).where(where({ deck_permissions: { user_id: user.id, read_access: true } }, global_deck_read: true, user_id: user.id).where_values_hash.reduce(&:or)) }

# Returns a new relation, which is the logical union of this relation and the one passed as an # argument. # # The two relations must be structurally compatible: they must be scoping the same model, and # they must differ only by #where (if no #group has been defined) or #having (if a #group is # present). Neither relation may have a #limit, #offset, or #distinct set.

Important caveat: in the combined expression, if the middle command has a non-zero exit status, then both the middle and the rightmost command end up getting executed.

bedmap && mv || fail

⟫ true && false || echo 'fail'
fail

⟫ false && true || echo 'fail'
fail

The potential problem: if second_task fails, third_task will not run, and execution will continue to the next line of code - next_task, in this example. This may be exactly the behavior you want. Alternatively, you may be intending that if second_task fails, the script should immediately exit with its error code. In this case, the best choice is to use a block - i.e., curly braces: first_task && { second_task third_task } next_task Because we are using the -e option, if second_task fails, the script immediately exits.

[[ -z "$a" || -z "$b" ]] && usage

When I say that my experience is that it means it's time to split up your components, I guess I mean that there tends to be a logical grouping between all the things that care about (for example) sqr_n, and in Svelte, logical groupings are expressed as components.

This is all well and good when we’re talking about buying decisions, but what if I were to say, “Should we go to war in April or in May?”

To conjoin if, changes, and exists clauses with an AND, use them in the same rule.

argument from authority (e.g., President Richard Nixon should be re-elected because he has a secret plan to end the war in Southeast Asia — but because it was secret, there was no way for the electorate to evaluate it on its merits; the argument amounted to trusting him because he was President: a mistake, as it turned out)

The Democrats wanted to keep the issue alive to use it as a wedge against the Republicans and to establish themselves as owners of the Hispanic vote.