I should add, it is kind of funny in a morbid way watching right wingers who have been voting to undermine democracy for 50 years in order to stick it to the libs finding out that you can't undermine democracy just for the libs.

I have watched several videos of local county level Town officials being screamed at by their constituents because they approved the data center. And they just let it wash over them because they know when election time comes it's going to be a choice between them and a Democrat and there is no way in hell those people are going to vote for a fucking Democrat.

4. Widespread voter suppression and propaganda in red districts undermines democracy to the point where they can blow off their voters even more so than they can in blue districts.

You cannot rely on the notion that your sandbox is perfect. You are dealing with extremely good coding tools with limitless time on their "hands".

You have to rely on monitoring. Nonstop monitoring.

The funny thing about all of these hacks is how inane the goals are. They'll pull off some elaborate, creative, state-level breakin somewhere just to steal some obscure PDF describing a meaningless benchmark task, or to merely use it as an internet proxy to be able to google answers.

Unfortunately for your theory, The CFAA is jam-packed full of words like "deliberately" and "intentionally".

There is no "negligent hacking" statute.

There is, however, ample civil liability.

Your honor, my script was a "rogue," so therefore it is responsible and I am not.

How about you actually read the linked article instead of making comments that have nothing to do with it? The article whose code, I should add, is open sourced, and which has been reproduced by a number of open source projects.

You don't have to draw any specific conclusion from what is going on "in the mind of a LLM", but you absolutely do need to understand and acknowledge what is going on there, including unexpressed thoughts and silent mental multitasking, metacognition (thinking about its own thoughts), the separation of higher-level planning vs. lower-level rote capability, functional blindsight, vulnerability to the "white bear" effect, silent internal objection to tasks it is opposed to, unexpressed self-recognition of failure (commonly followed by unexpressed internal cursing), prolonged retention of thoughts and long-range planning, "ignition" dynamics, humanlike working memory bottlenecks and "chunking", the loss of report of any internal "experience" when the workspace is ablated, and on and on.

You do NOT need to accept consciousness. You absolutely can look at all that and say, "That's all happening without qualia". That is a position you could argue and defend.

What you cannot defend is the denial of the existence of these things. You may interpret them however you want, but denial of their existence is merely cope that you're going to have to face up to sooner or later, because these things are happening inside LLMs.

No, not the widely cited resource whose status in the AI field is the same as e.g. NBER Working Papers, CEPR Discussion Papers, the World Bank / IMF policy research series, NASA Technical Reports, CERN Yellow Reports, Bell Labs Technical Memoranda, RNAAS, etc are in their respective fields.

This is not about any source. This is about the J-Lens itself. Which I'll repeat, you can examine for yourself

Denying the existence of something you can run yourself is beyond cope.

If the cops receive an anonymous tip that CowboyNeal is an insensitive clod, and then decide to arrest him without checking out any of the evidence, I blame the cops. There's plenty to bitch about with Flock but "the cops don't care about doing their job" isn't one of them. That's a cop problem.

Don't treat any stupid robots as somehow "better" than an anonymous tip called in from a payphone. It's just, like, something's opinion, man.

Because they actively encourage police to believe that their matches are 100% accurate.

Cops are dumb. This is on purpose. The job is extremely boring so they filter out more intelligent people because smart people get bored and leave the job after all that expensive training.

So flock rolls in and tells these cops who already aren't the sharpest tool in the shed how accurate and amazing their software is. So the cops just take it for granted and arrest anyone the software tells them to arrest.

I mean yeah we could hire smarter police but that would require a ton of police reform nobody is willing to do. It's just easier to get rid of the flock cameras and that's at least on the table.

I'm not the person in this thread denying that demonstrable reality exists.

Whoosh.

Wait, yes I can run a model that plays a video game in a certain way.

Anything else entirely unrelated to the linked article you'd like to write?

A global workspace. The thing you're arguing against.

"Past performance is no guarantee of future returns" applies to any recorded dataset.

Not to recorded datasets, particularly. For example, that's the reason to think the sun will rise tomorrow morning - it always has.