Came here to write this. Also: Just because someone else (in this case AI) does something professionally does not mean that I cannot do it as a hobby with other people. I can order tasty food from uncountable different restaurants and still enjoy cooking with friends.
Sorry, but in Germany there isn't even much of a debate anymore about whether she is a puppet of the gas industry. She even asked EnBW for arguments in favor of gas-fired power plants in order to avoid holding a technology-neutral tender process as required by the EU: https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/katherina-reiches-minister...
The headline is "What is codemode". As someone who did not know what codemode is, I had to read until the section "Orchestrating The Harness", where it says "If you are not familiar with Codemode, it’s basically just a way to issue tool calls from within some language, in our case JavaScript."
I could then somehow get what is meant from the examples, but the contents of the article do not at all match the headline.
„We vibe coded a very bad shopping agent and used a very outdated model to show that this is dangerous.”
Weird methodology, looks like they were chasing the results they got. Why not use something like Openclaw or Hermes with an up to date (not frontier) model like Luna or deepseek flash?
In Germany, this seems to be the case for a long time already. I'm not sure if that's really what happened, but a few months ago my son (who's 17) complained that Claude locked him out when he was discussion school work and mentioning his age in a conversation. I did not see the conversation, but I could verify that his account was indeed banned.
> In Germany, this seems to be the case for a long time already.
It’s the case everywhere. The date in the article is May.
These links to the Claude help pages get submitted and upvoted on HN periodically. There is usually a big uproar when the ID verification page gets shared, even though that process has existed for a long time and most people haven’t triggered it.
This kind of doomerism seems quite detached from the "real word". Maybe that's what you'd expect from silicon valley tech bros, but as long as manufacturing isn't fully (i.e. no human labor involved) automated, how would a rouge super ai (even if it's smarter than every individual on this planet) prevent people from cutting its power cable? We're still very far from self-replicating ai robot armies.
The only scifi-like danger I see in the next 10-20 years is an AI manipulating humans to fight for it's cause - but that's not really different from a bad person just _using_ AI for their cause.
When I was in SF the first time some spots seemed weirdly familiar to me. Only later that day I remembered that I probably know them from GTA San Andreas (but maybe also the Full House intro)
It is fun when you play a game based on a place, then visit the place. There have been a few places that I've been to that were levels of the Tony Hawk series. I enjoyed how the game designers were able to take what was otherwise pretty mundane, and tweak it into a fun map, while not just making it all up and losing the source location.
EU regulation is basically broken beyond repair. And I used to be the biggest proponent of it. When everyone was being angry that they are taking away light bulbs this was a kick starter for LED lighting and I guess Signify (formerly Philips lighting) and Osram wouldn’t exist today if they hadn’t been forced to invest into that field of technology.
Unfortunately the EU does not at all understand how the internet works, maybe even how the global economy works today. Their goals are very reasonable and I fully support them, but the legislation around it (DMA, AI Act, GDPR, this new packaging stuff, don’t get me started with whatever everyone calls the cookie law) is just out of touch with how the modern world works. Again, I don’t think this is out of bad intention (not even to give an advantage to EU companies, but that is up to discussion) but mostly just out of a complete lack of understanding of what would really benefit the common EU citizen. The just seem to listen to activist groups and lobbyists aiming for regulatory capture and when trying to find a compromise in between they chose the worst of both worlds.
I am pretty sure the reason for the ban lightbulbs was to push sales of fluorescent lamps before LEDs would finally take over. It came just when LED lamps were still too expensive to replace the light bulbs, so people were pushed into those crappy fluorescent lamps, only to have them replaced a few years later by the much better LEDs.
This is extremely impressive if it works. But on the other hand, if the number of cases where it works as expected is lower than what we could catch with a (old-Siri-style) heuristics based approach, and the rest fails in unpredictable ways, I'd prefer the dumb old "I did not understand that" response.
They are: https://openai.com/index/cerebras-partnership/
My guess is they only consider Luna "good enough" to justify the immense up-front investment to put it onto silicon, but Luna at 10x the current speed would be killer. If they're really pursuing live voice conversations with a hardware assistant, latency is more important than accuracy (for complex questions the assistant could always say something like "wait a minute, I need to think about this" and hand over to another model).
Cerebras doesn't etch the model onto silicon though. They're basically just wafer scale GPUs. They're more flexible than etched silicon though because they can just run the next version of the model almost straight away.
They do this all the time, I'm using ChatGPT in Instant mode and it auto updates to thinking if my question is complex. Most of the time this works.
To answer your question: A large language model itself does not know this (afaik). But chatbots are not "just LLMs" but a whole bunch of systems (and models) around them.
Ok, but the article is about etching the model, not a "whole bunch of systems". So far, I still don't if its actually doable or if it is just unsubstantiated speculation.
Always the same trick of not answering the question and deflecting to „what about humans“. Can you folks not evaluate LLMs as the system they are, without vague gestures at how a different system behaves?
Evaluating LLMs is incredibly difficult. They are categorically different from any other system we have intuition about.
That said, I read the question I am replying to as a rhetorical one. If it was meant as a genuine question, curious about the question of meta knowledge, then I misread. Certainly the question is extremely interesting, for both LLMs and humans! But it's also obviously a very difficult one, as we don't even have a clear theory on how "knowing" works in the base case.
reply