https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/ODNI-Un...

https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/congressional-testimo...

Bridges fall down sometimes. I don't think it's acceptable. It's a statement of fact. There are always going to be mistakes, in every field and in pursuit of every goal. Your objection and implications aren't particularly charitable here.

> My "brilliant" plan would have been the negotiations that were happening where Iran agreed to pretty strict monitoring and stipulations on nuclear fuel development.

Iran was not complying with the monitoring requirements.

> The "Iran was getting nukes" rhetoric needs real evidence that was actually happening not "we think that might be happening because Trump said so."

Intelligence agencies under both Biden and Trump (and since at least the 90s) have repeatedly confirmed it.

This isn't really a question or doubt any reasonable person can have. There can be an argument about how close they are at any given moment, but they are actively pursuing nuclear weapons.

This is a cost/resources thing. If it's more effective and the resources are available, it's completely fine.

You realize that like.. other people exist, right?

I mean, we already have. You volunteer to participate in a system where ~40k people die in the US every year by engaging in travel on public roadways. If self-driving reduces that to 10k, that's a win. You're not really making any sense.

This is a big claim. Do you have any evidence to support it?

In the wake of someone trying to prove the same for Congress, it was conclusively shown that the opposite was true:

https://www.vox.com/2016/5/9/11502464/gilens-page-oligarchy-...

I see several opinion pieces making the same claim, but no actual studies of their decisions.

More importantly: the concern can't and shouldn't be the income of the parties involved in a suit, but who is right and who isn't.

CentOS used to be a free and open source downstream version of RHEL. Keeping the history short: Red Hat effectively acquired CentOS and discontinued it as a downstream version of RHEL. They turned it into 'CentOS Stream', which is, more or less, a continuously delivered upstream version of RHEL. This isn't acceptable for a large number of the CentOS user base.

One of the original founders of CentOS, Gregory Kurtzer, started Rocky as an alternative. It's basically what CentOS used to be: a free and open source downstream version of RHEL.

Those aren't models, they are applications built on top of models.

> That can be done with special tokens also. The difference is that the user can't enter those tokens themselves.

Sure. But there are no open models that do that, and no indication of whether the various closed models do it either.

The ability to trivially trick the model into thinking it said something it didn’t is a feature and intentional. It’s how you do multi-turn conversations with context.

Since the current crop of LLMs have no memory of their interaction, each follow up message (the back and forth of a conversation) involves sending the entire history back into the model, with the role as a prefix for each participants output/input.

There are some special tokens used (end of sequence, etc).

If your product doesn’t directly expose the underlying model, you can try to prevent users from impersonating responses through obfuscation or the LLM equivalent of prepared statements. The offensive side of prompt injection is currently beating the defensive side, though.

Sorry if it came off as more than looking to clarify it for folks coming across it.

Nearly all popular local models are instruction tuned, but are not RLHF'd. The OAI GPT series are not the only LLMs in the world.

RLHF trains a model to adjust it's output based on a reward model. The reward model is trained from human feedback.

You can have an instruction tuned model with no RLHF, RLHF with no instruction tuning, or instruction tuning and RLHF. Totally orthogonal.