I think they said increasing false positives because it would make it easier to generate at a mass scale. IDK the merits of the argument or what exactly they're saying would be done, but imagine pre-AI it might take someone quite a bit of manual effort to manufacture a plausible document regarding nuclear developments, but with AI it doesn't require so much work and is easier.
To me it seems like it's more likely to refuse the harder the problem is. I wonder if it's cover for a model that's not as good as advertised. Even when I ask questions in biology it is switching me.
Everyone probably has thought "what was the person thinking when they wrote this". Now you know that they probably didn't think (and since 2025 or so, it might not even have been a person).
There's such a spectrum between "give it everything" and "give it nothing". Imagine you just want to use it to code and want to make sure any commands it runs doesn't mess up your actual machine.
Ya if you just run VMs but now a lot of cloud vendors have you build stuff using their proprietary features so decoupling becomes harder and can be risky.
I don't know how it is in Europe but when I worked at restaurants, it was just part of the managers job to bring the cash to the bank. It took 20-30 minutes, we'll say 1 hour if it's busy. The bank didn't charge a fee to deposit the cash. Pay was like $20/hr, let's say 50% overhead so $30 to deposit the cash. The frequency was just about weekly, and would be into the thousands. Let's say it's only $1,000. That's 3%. And they generally did it when there was down time anyways, so I think it's wrong to attribute 100% of that to depositing cash, since it would be an expense regardless.
But this is just my anecdotal experience, do you have actual numbers/statistics on this?
Because information asymmetry benefits those with the information. If the devil understands your argument, and you don't understand the devil's argument, the devil will have information advantage.
reply