Wtf are you talking about? They are carrying guns, they shot back. What they were doing was illegal, and it doesn’t justify murder but let’s not pretend these are morally upstanding people, walking around DC with guns loaded. They are there to instill fear.
This looks like a design decision to avoid running elevated programs. I would like to see the experiment done with another admin ability that doesn’t directly ‘threaten’ the llm, like uninstalling or installing random software, toggling network or vpn connections, restarting services etc. What the researchers call ‘sabotage’, it is literally the llm echoing “the computer would shut down here if this was for real, but you didn’t specifically tell me I might shutdown so I’ll avoid actually doing it.” And when a user tells it “it’s OK to shutdown if told to”, it mostly seems to comply, except for Grok. It seems that this restriction on the models overrides any system prompt though, which makes sense because sometimes the user and the author of the system prompt are not the same person.
For anyone curious, Rosalind Franklin did get a mention… In the 17th and 18th paragraphs. Might as well be a footnote, just like the original paper. He was an awful, pitiful man, when you read the fine print.
I actually don’t doubt that this time lol
How do I uninstall? Is apt purge available on this system?
We are seething over the very real possibility that we will not have another free election, because of shitstains that think, by not participating in the political process in the smallest fucking way they possibly could, they are going to get politicians to listen to their social media diatribes somehow. It makes zero fucking sense.
Politicians take positions based on the demographics of their voters. It’s always been this way. They look at exit polls, see that 10% of their voters are zoomers and promptly ignore that entire demographic’s demands.
I was wrong, just remembered incorrectly.
Signal is not open source.
You should be fine to not have a phone PIN, unless you’re planning on a life of crime.
But, in that case there’s a crime, there’s a body. I don’t think there’s any underlying assertion of illegality here. If this becomes standard legal practice, that it’s illegal to destroy data in general, all paper shredders would have to be thrown out.