If Bitcoin were worth much less the network would still be secure even though the mining reward would only be enough to pay for a fraction of the current processing.

If Bitcoin does not double in value every four years, the mining reward will reduce in real world terms.

Claiming the mining resources required will be at the current level or higher perpetually requires also making the claim that you think that the value will increase exponentially forever.

Nothing increases exponentially forever.

There if a presumption with benchmark scores that the score is only valid if the benchmark were properly applied. An AI that figures out how to reward hack represents a result not within the bounds of measurement, but still interesting, and necessitates a new benchmark.

Just saying 'Done it!' is not reward hacking. It is just a lie. Most data is analysed under the presumption that it is not a lie. If it turns out to be a lie the analysis can be discarded. Showing something is a lie has value. Showing that lying exists (which appears to be the level this publication is at) is uninformative. All measurements may be wrong, this comes as news to no-one.

A 1 bit framebuffer and a CPU gets you most of what the machine can do.

Most of the quirk abuse of 8-bit machines came from features that were provided with limitations. Sprites, but only 8 of them, colours but only 2 in any 8x8 cell. Multicolour but only in one of two palettes and you'll hate both.

Almost all of the hacks were to get around the limitations of the features.

I don't know if the decision apple made was specifically with future machines in mind. It certainly would have been a headache to make new machines 5 generations down the track if the first one had player missile graphics.

For mining it is just necessary that it happens.

The amount of work in mining is way higher than is required to prevent another party from being able to overwhelm the Blockchain. It is that high because of the subsidy of the mining reward means if Bitcoin has a high value the reward is worth a lot.

This is factored in with the halving of the reward. Either the price will increase exponentially or the mining reward will drop. Causing mining to reduce to those who can be profitable from fees. Which rewards those who can mine most efficiently, it becomes a supply and demand calculation in a market where there are relatively low barriers for competitors.

THEREFORE A COMPUTER MUST NEVER MAKE A MANAGEMENT DECISION

—IBM internal training, 1979

It took me a while to realise that the premise is saying the same thing as the reason why we have so many "Computer says no" experiences today.

The conclusion only follows if you want someone to be accountable.

If you want to avoid being accountable, computers should make all management decisions. This has nothing to do with AI other than it provides another mechanism to do that.

People saying "I'd love to help you but the computer won't let me do that" has been happening for years now.

Websites develop abusive patterns because A/B testing lets a process decide based on the goal you want, It doesn't measure the repercussions so you have made no decision to allow them.

Management read it as

A COMPUTER CAN NEVER BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE

THEREFORE THERE CAN BE NO LIABILITY IF COMPUTERS MAKE ALL MANAGEMENT DECISIONS

Selective Study Confirms Already Held Prejudice.

It makes a good companion to;

Outlier Study Upends Conventional Wisdom.

That is a non sequitur. Also, I'm not sure if copyright applies to humans, or persons (not that I have encountered particularly creative corporations, but Taranaki Maunga has been known for large scale decorative works)

To be protected they not only have to publish their security protocol, but adhere to it.

That's not just 'providing a PDF'

That particular section is entirely appropriate. A company can't do everything necessary to prevent every bad thing. They should do everything that they reasonably can. Someone else should decide what is reasonable.

The regulators are saying we've decided the what you have to do to be considered to have done all you could to be safe. Follow those rules, tell us how you've followed those rules, and if something bad happens and we find out that you didn't follow the rules you said we're going to nail you to the wall.

This hinges on Section 15. Which I think is inadequate because it does not meet the criteria of someone else deciding what is reasonable. Publishing their safety plans and adhering to them should be enough to grant protection from liability of harm directly to users, since the publication give individuals the ability to make an informed decision, provided they have done the safety work that they have said, a user deciding that is sufficient for them and choosing to use it should be allowable.

That should not extend to harm done to others. They don't get to choose. Consequently the standard required to be protected against claims of negligence has to be decided by a third party (experts hired by regulators ideally).

Blanket liability and blanket indemnity both go too far.

If someone makes a YoYo that blow's someone up because they made it out of explosives then they should be held liable.

If someone makes a YoYo that blow's up a city because it contained particles unknown and undetectable to any science we have, they shouldn't be to blame.

The key is that they have to have done what we think is required. Legislators get to decide what it is that is required. If a company does all of that, then they shouldn't be held responsible, because they have done all they were asked to do.

The problem is not that a law provides indemnity, the problem is that it sets the standard to qualify too low.

It's what I doodle with to generate images using a stack based program per pixel.

Every character is a stack operation, you have 50 characters to make something special.

https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/2026/bio-the-bao-i-o-copr...

I think, for my use, just having the ability to write to DMA registers would have been a big advantage. It feels wasteful to have A DMA waiting on a FIFO just to write what it gets to DMA registers to do the transfer you actually wanted.

Looking at the Architecture diagram It seems like it could have allowed that and stayed on the same side of the AHB5 splitter.

The problem with going off design sheet is you don't know what might change. There's usually a good chance that you are not depending on the difference, but it's the not knowing that gets to you.

It was always the dilemma of whether to pull the CPU out of a C64 and replace it like this, do it as a bus mastering cartridge, or replace the RAM.

I have been leaning towards the cartridge plan to avoid the requirement of doing machine surgery. If you get the RP2350 to pretend to be the RAM then the video hardware could read directly out of it which makes all sorts of shenanigans possible (every line a BADLINE).

At some point it would look like just plugging A VIC-II and a SID into a board with the RP2350 though, The cartridge approach means you have to do transfers across into the computer's RAM, but you could also write to hardware registers every CPU cycle, which would enable some potentially new modes that would not be entirely dissimilar to every line a BADLINE.

Right now I'm mucking around with getting the RP2350 to output video constructed a scanline at a time, using as little CPU as possible. I got three layers of tiles and two layers of sprites each with different pixel formats working yesterday. Quite pleased with that. The CPU calculates a handful of values per scanline, but fetching tilemap data, then tile data, then conversion to pixel values, transparency and palette lookup are all DMA and PIO. Does 1,2,4, and 8 bits per pixel, each tile/sprite/imagebuffer layer with independent 24 bit palettes.

I don't think you can attribute this to financial incentive. The actual Satoshi could forfeit 90% of their BTC and still have more than they could know what to do with.

At those kinds of levels I can see personal security being a higher consideration.

Either way it would give no indication who might be Satoshi because all candidates would have a similar incentive if they were Satoshi, and you are measuring the absence of information.

>P.G.P., a free encryption program used by antinuclear activists and human rights groups to shield their files and emails from government surveillance.

I find it fascinating to see how the users of a program change, based on how a reporter wants to build or diminish.

At least it's going in a positive direction today.

What other point could you have been making? You made no reference to any other evidence.

>as much as I admire the creativity in your interpretation, Mr. Self-Described Altman Apologist).

I am unsure if this is deliberate irony, or poor comprehension.

To be frank, While I tend to think that Dario has good intentions, I'm not so sure about his judgement. He's made a lot of claims that haven't panned out. I haven't felt that it was due to dishonesty, but more because of hyperbole.

The phrasing "Altman then denied having made the claim. “I didn’t even say that,” he said. “You just said that,” Daniela replied." is very close to the pattern I described above where someone interprets a claim as something different from what was actually said and refuses to back down. Furthermore this was prefaced with "As one person briefed on the exchange recalled" so it isn't even a first hand account. We don't know who the person doing the briefing was, but if it was one of the participants of the exchange, they would have been afforded the opportunity to reframe it to put themselves in a better light.

The second claim is potentially even more of a match for the example I gave regarding people misreading legal documentation. Was this a denial about the existence of words in a document, or was it a denial that the words represented the provision that was claimed. I have seen people do this, they take the existence of the words as proof of their interpretation and take dismissal of the interpretation as a claim that the words do not exist. I don't rightly know why people do this, but I have seen it happen. I suspect you could find an abundant supply of cases like this from the records of the worlds town council meetings.

It is difficult to assess the reliability of claims made by the current administration (understating it somewhat), but one of the things that was said about the Government negotiations with Anthropic was that he wanted a gate to some AI abilities in national security circumstance by requiring a personal phone call to Amodei to clear it. No sane government on earth would agree to something like that. It would be an invitation to providing a corporate interest a massive point of leverage in a time of crisis.

But again I am in a similar position with Amodei. I don't have any direct knowledge of the person so I will reserve judgement. I generally like the approach Anthropic is taking but the exposure I have had to the statements made by Amodei himself has given me pause. I would not condemn him either, but I also wouldn't place a lot of stock in what he says unless I see more to create a more complete view of his character.

You note amount of people interviewed and their very similar experiences but it's the nature of how those claims are similar that concerns me. So many of the claims seem to fall into the pattern that requires the person reporting the claim to judge the sole meaning of what was said. How many confirmed direct quotes have been confirmed to be untrue? I'm open to the evidence, perhaps this article will draw some out, but right now I see people convincing themselves of a pattern and then interpreting their own experiences in terms of that pattern.

The thing is, if you were to ask, I think Altman would agree that he shouldn't be in charge of the world's AI. I don't think any one person should, and I would treat anyone who claimed that they were the right person for that job with massive suspicion. To say that's where he sits is to buy into the premise that whoever is the head of OpenAI controls our future. OpenAI is but one of many enterprises working on this, there are a lot of people claiming they already have lost too much ground, but then there have been many predicting their imminent collapse, like a doomsday cult rolling forward the calendar whenever it doesn't happen.

>Ah, so like OpenAI then.

What kind of reasoning is this? The sort that can respond to.

"I'm a doctor"

With

"Ah, like Harold Shipman"

How is this sort of framing good for anyone?

To put another way, how much inferior can the model be with a superior harness to achieve a similar result?