its also a far more serious crime like how grand theft auto doesnt carry the same sentence as stealing a candy bar.

Why vandalise something that has sensors and can send a distress signal 50 milliseconds into you breaking it. You arent going to improve your chances by immediately putting a site on red alert after its surveillance systems have been messed with.

They wouldnt be. The point is talking about edge cases like vandalism doesn't say much about the economics of automated security.

Sure some people will break bots.

Just like some people will steal packages from your front door. The macro question is whether the industry can absorb the new vandalism cases. I suspect it could.

>So it serves as an item to create a distraction?

No. It notifies the security manager when there is an issue. Security guards arent batman. The job is to observe and report. Years will go by just observing and reporting. Any time something dangerous happens the police are called to resolve the issue. They have the relevant legal authority.

​

>How does this offer an advantage over security cameras that are significantly harder to disable?

because it can move in 3d space. Seeing things through static cameras that you cant manipulate in 3d space is like really hard. But once again you wouldnt know about that if youve never been in the industry. Call that a meme or whatever you want. Ignorance is ignorance.

​

>Every fucking time. EVERY FUCKING TIME.

Yup. Every fucking time. EVERY FUCKING TIME you show complete ignorance about what people in an industry Ive worked in actually do all day I will call you out on not knowing what you are talking about. Dont get me wrong there are people whove never worked in security who know what the job entails. You just happen not to be one of those people.

​

>I can see why you use past tense.

I left willingly because the hours never seem to match well to my graduate school program. I have never been fired from a security role and have been asked to return many times since leaving the industry.

Yh and when it's disabled it sends an alert for a human to come in person. The idea isn't 0 humans in the loop. It's put these in the majority of a site area and have a smaller number of humans at a control center.

I'm guessing youve never worked in security. Most security guards don't do anything other than alert more senior members. I've worked security and can tell you a year can go by doing nothing more than sending a message to a security manager when something goes wrong.

And ? What's your point ?

Plastic objects cant have sensors and cameras ?

A human if vandalised would cost even more.

Vandalising something with cameras sensors that can send an immediate distress signal is a very bad idea.

Yeah that or, 'think very clearly of a sentence, in order, focus on it, and repeat it again and again.'

​

unlikely. this would be a very bad test for the system since its a prediction model and predicting the same sentence the 4th time voids the purpose of the test.

I think its more "think the following 62 words in this text as fast as you can " i.e its people reading and the bci catching the words.

62 words per minute Is crazy

I'm not even sure I think that many lol

even if they do this they have to make the ai better in order to make more money

more intelligence = higher profits no matter their business model.

yes!. the really big breakthrough here is that its on par with the original gpt3 at only 7 billion parameters on a bunch of benchmarks ive seen.

​

that means its gotten 25x more efficient in the last 3 years.

I wonder how efficient these things can get. Like are we going to see a model thats 280 million parameters that rivals original gpt3 in 2026 and a 11 million parameter one in 2029.

For those wondering about the performance

5 shot performance on MMLU.

Chinchilla 67.5

this new model 68.9

human baseline 89.8

​

so it seems a smidge better than chinchilla on 5 shot MMLU Which many consider to be the important AGI benchmark (its one of the AGI conditions on metaculus)

some nice work by meta.

I'd be curious about what restrictions come with these 270$ leases

I imagine you basically can't drive your car over whatever arbitrary miles /day they set. In which case I wouldn't take a lease even for 150$ a month.

also thats just us prices

​

the prices in much of europe are atrocious compared to the us market.

that 384 is over 5 years. I said over 4.

if you do a simple but incorrect extrapolation that would be 384(60)//48 = 480 dollars pm with the 3k down. Thats not really far off from what I said.

Go look at the lease to buy options. That's whats on offer

6k a year is 24k over 4 years Plus 5k is 29k for a 25k car. That basically covers car plus a small interest rate

If it's lease and return you might get out of the 5k. But 250 a month isn't possible there either

25K at 250 a month ? lol

​

try 25k at 500 a month with a 5k deposit over 4 years and even that would be a good car deal in todays climate.

​

what planet do you live on that allows you to lease 25k cars at 3k a year ?

yuli ban has a decent track record of predictions from what ive seen.

not sure if he has mental health issues.

Being able to architect ais seems like a very general task though

I'm not confident a narrow AI could do it well enough to make an AGI

Cool haven't heard any quantum computing stuff in a while

Although it seems nobody cares much. AI is zooming ahead even without quantum

What other language model would they be working on that's this powerful ?

it seems like its 6 times more expensive than chatgpt given the relative pricing

​

since chatgpt costs a few cents per query we can expect this to cost a few tens of cents per query.

​

But the queries can be like 20,000 words of context which allows it to write like whole programs entire research papers short books etc

32k context !!!!!!!

That means 8x chatgpt which can remember the last 4k tokens or 2000 words

GPT 4 can remember (in the more premium version) 16000 words !

yup and neither is schools getting paranoid about chatgpt.

Bringing another AI as an analogy as to why your assertion that "if it makes money it could kill us " is false is not taking things out of context. Its like just a way of showing you that you were wrong about AIs being able to kill us just because they can make money because we have AIs that make money and like have not killed us.

​

with all that said I do believe in AI doom.