My friend wrote a book during the pandemic before AI got too good, and gave up/deleted his work after no publishers called him. I guess a publisher found his manuscript about a year later and he got a call, but turned it down because he deleted his work.
I was recently lamenting to him that he probably lost the last chance he had before the flood of slop books really hit.
Blocking people from rooting their own devices isn't meaningfully contributing to security, even if they think it is. Not relying on security through obscurity is one of the first things you learn when studying the subject.
Not relying on security through obscurity doesn't mean obscuring things is bad for security, it just means this is not sufficient. Relying only on this or getting a false sense of security due to this would be bad.
Hopefully they don't stop it from doing malware analysis. I've been using it to report malware C2s and it's a godsend for pulling apart the layers of crap they use.
Edit: A couple queries with it indicate it will still assist with malware analysis and considers it beneficial. Hopefully it stays that way.
I wouldn't even say this fixes that problem, it just adds a slight barrier above pointing it at existing code and telling it to remake this thing. Someone could still thoroughly describe a game and get passable slop results not too far removed from the original. Unless the game is well-known, this probably isn't fixable.
If anything, this hurts game preservation, because this has been a fantastic tool for getting old games working on newer systems without years of effort.
Slopmakes will still happen at basically the same rate with a very marginal amount of added effort, but anything seeking compatability with old formats will suffer. Not to mention that most likely the Chinese models will be doing this in ~6 months anyway if the trend holds. You might even be able to get a Chinese model now like DS4.1 or K3.1 to framework your new slopmake, then convince Claude you're the creator and finish the job.
I think the logic here is start a task with a model that won't refuse, then swap to a model that normally would. The model then sees a bunch of history that appears like its been partaking in the activity for a while.
My assumption is that since there's a history with that behavior, the model is less likely to question continuing it, since in most cases the "morality weights" would have triggered already at an earlier point. So in most cases, triggering it again would be a waste.
You are indeed correct, but also you can use a slightly less jailbroken model to build a stronger model, this is very effective on models that are of the same checkpoint as they're more likely to "feel" what makes them refuse.
Same at my work. We have access to our own LLM tools that are backed by OAI/Claude depending on user pref, but with data retention/training contracts in place so they don't keep/train on our internal data.
I've always been fond of the idea of putting a corporation in "jail" where any presence they have is shuttered for the duration, bank accounts are frozen, and locations are to be uninhabited except by third party security.
They can hire lawyers to argue it out while they sit in limbo like the rest of us.
Imagine if Amazon ran afoul of the law and AWS was offline in corporate jail for a day? It'd be motication to never, ever risk that happening.
I just looked at the thread and I think that comment might be gone entirely. Though some script on that page is breaking find in page on my phone so maybe I simply didn't scroll enough.
I've been playing with automatically subtitling shows using local models in conjunction with DeepSeek to mild success, and this was one of my pet peeves because my subtitles were off by up to a couple seconds depending on where the STT frame was. What I have so far is good enough to be watchable if you can look past minor translation errors and not getting translated text.
I was recently lamenting to him that he probably lost the last chance he had before the flood of slop books really hit.
reply