For these hidden reasoning steps, especially the epiphenomenal model, there can also be redundancy between weight computation and chain of thoughts. That is, a dumb model seeing the chain of thought of a smart model might get the right answer when it would not otherwise, even if the chain of thought does not help the large model. 

Under the assumption of separate initialization, this probably does not happen in cases where the extra information is stenographic, or in some examples of irrelevant reasoning because things are not being passed through the token bottleneck. 

Steve Strickland: GPT-5 is the first model I’ve used that will deliberately give a wrong answer to ‘check you’re paying attention’.

This fundamentally unreliable technology is not going to put us all out of work.

Is that intentional, or is the name a hallucination and the cheeky comment an intervention aimed on exploiting the fact that models can tell when they are hallucinating. 

In lots of these cases, it seems like every university ends up thinking (This student would be making a mistake to commit to our university). It seems like a really hard sell to say universities should accept people who they think would be making a mistake to actually go. This is unfair, the university does not know your other options, and this mistake framework requires that committing be worse than the decision that you would actually take. 

I think this might be an attempted countermeasure against prompt injection. That is, it wants to mix autoregressive and reconstructed residuals. Otherwise, it might lose it's train of thought (end up continuing the article not following the prompt). 

There is a hidden legal standard that this law would like to endorse about existing laws, but I am not sure that it sets out. It is at least suggesting a precedent when it talks about "Things that would be crimes requiring intent", in that there is an argument that LLMs or any AIs do not yet have the requisite mental state, since they don't really have mental states. So they can't be liable for crimes becasue of mens rea reasons, and since you did not know you can't have intent. This law is trying to argue that that is basically bullshit. 

(i) Acts with no meaningful human intervention; and

(ii) Would, if committed by a human, constitute a crime specified in the penal law that requires intent, recklessness, or gross negligence, or the solicitation or aiding and abetting of such a crime.

seems to imply that the lawmakers believe that there should not be a way for using an AI to sever liability, criminal or civil, for an action, regardless of what you intended the AI do,  and if you are in a position to do that this makes it the providing companies problem. They fucked up, but it informs the prosecutor that they should prosecute, because the provider fucked up. 

Basically, it is 1 law away from doing the "if your dog commited a violation, x happens", for "If an AI commits a tort, who is liabile" with an answer that is not nobody. There is an argument under current law that there is a level of independence where that is nobody, because the AI can't have relative intent. This law tries to say "IT REALLY SHOULD BE THE AI COMPANY" if liability would sink in an independent agent without it's own assets. 

We are exactly worried about that though. It is not that AGI will be inteligent (that is the name), but that it can and probably will develop dangerous capabilities. Inteligence is the word we use to describe it, since it is associated with the ability to gain capability, but even if the AGI is sometimes kind of brute force or dumb does not mean that it cannot also have dangerous enough capabilities to beat us out. 

On AI diplomacy, 1. It is a useful model benchmark but 2. Is not new, since we already had human level full press diplo harnesses (CICERO) (2022). It would be useful to compare these new harnesses to the more targeted system. 

whether

Is that supposed to be weather?

No, because you need different strategies to prove the loop case (which you can do with just a sequence of transitions), the halt case (the same) and the use the infinite amount of memory case.

There is no proof that will catch 100% of case 3, (because then you would have a halting oracle). But you can create a program that will halt iff a program halts, or halt iff it loops in finite states or halts. (I could write it, but it just runs real slow).  You cannot write the program that halts if another program uses an infinite amount of memory (since then you could build a halting oracle). There are NO halting oracles, not just no efficient halting oracles.