Then you're still missing the safeguards for them harming others, and those can be very, very hard to separate

Empathy and nonverbal building of rapport for one, but also the judgment to intervene and take proportional action when there is an immediate threat to someone's life.

Do you want a therapist to call someone when their patient is seriously considering harming someone? Don't be too quick to wish for a machine to do that.

Doesn't work that way. A backdoor would indeed give access, but vulnerabilities are different. Exploits are valuable and used sparingly. It's not a key you can keep secret, if someone is recording the internet traffic with something like wireshark, they can steal the exploit or help the manufacturer fix it.

That's like saying one time pads are not secure because you don't know who has the key. It's about how you model it.

Perfectly secure here means someone who knows the exact distribution of the covertext. It's not about cryptography.

I believe this is the paper:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364777247_Perfectly_Secure_Steganography_Using_Minimum_Entropy_Coupling

Ah so the answer is "yes, we're going to model subjective appreciation of art"?

Go has an objective score you can quickly calculate to get better than humans. Writing and art do not, so you're still stuck copying humans, because you need them to rate the output. You're confusing objective score (quantity) with subjective quality.

And "no point fighting against it"? You're starting to sound like the Borg . Try to understand how this works before you abandon all hope in favor of our robot overlords.

When you make a chip with just as many transistors as a calculator, does it automagically become a calculator? No, it needs to be wired for the job and you need to program it. In the same way, neural networks need weights and biases, their "training".

You can get the calculations going, but where are you getting the training data to make art and music superhuman? Because that's what the argument is about. Are you going to model the subjective appreciation of it? That doesn't work that way because you can't write a loss function for what "better" art is.

It's good at replicating text patterns, but it doesn't reason, and can only basically only copy humans chatting. Midjourney might have been a better example. Point is that those systems will fundamentally not surpass human, just become better at copying us.

It's probably a combination of the first and second. The second is true if there are just as many shorts as longs, and it's only people that are checking the price, or other neutral interest. If it's late adopters getting in for the first time, that would be retail going mostly long, and waning interest causing smart money to go short, so that's just the rate of change.

Naked caveman eyeballs are not that useful for answering how much they're correlated, and any follow-up questions like which one is leading. Do you know how to do statistical tests? If you do, why are you asking?

So any manipulation isn't going to be goal-oriented and persistent, but just a fluke, a malfunction? Because that was my point.

It's only terrifying that you can't fully control it if it has goals of its own. Without that, it's just a broken product. Who's gonna systematically manipulate someone, the non-sentient language model, or the engineers who can't get it to do what they want?