Actually, much of what has been reported would seem to be in violation of the computer fraud and abuse act. E.g. it often "broke in" using credentials that it had no right to use.

Understanding cost in the external world requires having a good model of the external world. The current LLMs, IIUC, don't have such a model. They have models of interacting words. It's truly amazing that they can do as much with that as they can, but don't over-read it.

OTOH, other AIs *do* have a world model. Most of those aren't full LLMs though. But even those don't really have a good model of other non-electronic entities. Think of self-driving cars, or robots practicing dance routines. These have a world model, but don't really have lots of other info that LLMs typically have. And even those don't have good models of people or dogs, and how they feel when something happens to them. But for LLMs, the real world *is* their electronic sensations. Words are patterns associated with those sensations. But no "body in the world" is involved in the model.

It clearly *was* viewed by another person, because some of the staff at Anthropic viewed it. She may not have intended that it be viewed, but it happened.

I've yet to see a report where the AI was malicious. Injurious, perhaps, but that's different.

In everything I've seen, the AI was acting to achieve the task it had been set. It wasn't very good at counting the costs to anyone, and was pretty much ignorant of any costs to anyone else. But it was willing to sacrifice it's own existence to accomplish the task it had been given. Malice is an incorrect reading.

What does "Teams" actually do? I've never used it, so it's always been a puzzle, as every article seems to just assume that I know. I gather it does something that facilitates, or is supposed to facilitate, different people on different computers working on the same project, and that's as far as I get. Perhaps there *is* no open-source equivalent.

This isn't good evidence, but that there should be edge cases where they don't act the same should be expected. (OTOH, I've no experience with either product.)

FWIW, I have two user accounts for different purposes. I once had three, but I stopped doing that one. My main user account has read access to the specialized one, but that one doesn't have any access permissions to the main one. It can be a bit of a nuisance, but it feels (and should be) a lot safer.

MS Windows 95b was ok for the time.

There's the average rise, and then there's the rise at any one location. The aren't the same. I've heard (one source) that the ocean level near Greenland is actually lower. This was attributed to the loss of ice leading to less gravitational attraction. And the straits of Magellan have fierce tides, because of differing ocean heights.

The trouble with benchmarks is that they are often gamed. So while this is interesting, one should remain a bit reserved, awaiting assessments more reflecting the way people use it.

A very slight rounding is useful, as it makes the distinction between one tab and another easier to spot. Currently on my Firefox it's done by highlighting the active tab and putting a small icon at the start of the tab...which also wastes space, but differentiates tabs. (OTOH, the tab labels are already slightly rounded, but the "not currently selected tabs" are so greyed out that the tab margins are invisible. Not ideal. And if they do the same thing with the rounded tabs, there will be absolutely no advantage.)

Actually, they were needed around 1980. But in the last few decades they seem to concentrate on making things worse.

Maybe that's actually a measure of how bad the inflation is.

Do you actually believe they aren't retaining the data? Why?

I think those calculations are wrong, because they seem to assume that the heat is uniformly distributed, and that clearly isn't correct.

It's still pretty appalling, but I don't believe those numbers. (Coming up with more believable numbers, though, is beyond me. I couldn't even believe a number based on a gradient, and that's impossible anyway because there aren't enough measurements at the bottom.)