The good side of US diplomacy was one of the most positive forces in the world. Trump fully dismantled that. Not just the US aid work, but also the Pax Americana that really limited the scale of war in the world.

There were horrible missteps at the same time. The US wasn’t all good. Maybe it wasn’t even net good. But there was a significant good side, and its dismantling isn’t a small thing in the world.

The hard part is certificate authentication. And that's not included in the cipher suite setting.

Personally I really like it for "load-bearing assumptions". Because it let's you work with assumptions whilst pointing out the potential issues of that assumption.

Then there's an implication of 'sure, but that doesn't actually help much if it's not standar' and then it's not addressed further.

At least we seem to agree the solution lies with better tools for parents.

That means making it possible for parents to actively block bad websites, and making that hard to circumvent.

Though it would make more sense, since these humans are likely largely erroneous.

That's at an age where wizened legislators can move into advisory roles, instead of needing to find a next career.

That conversation is held in text, not in any internal representation. That text is called the reasoning trace. You can then analyse that trace.

When the LLM was in reasoning mode, in the reasoning context it often expressed statement X. Given that, and the relevance of statement X to the taken action. It seems likely that the presence of statement X in the context contributed to this action. Besides, the presence of statement X in the reasoning likely means that given the previous context embeddings of X are close to the context.

Hence we think that the action was taken due to statement X.

And that output could have come from an LLM introspecting it's own reasoning.

I don't think that phrasing things so pedanticaly is worth the extra precision though. Especially not for the statement that inspecting the reasoning logs of sn LLM can help give insight on why an LLM acted a certain way.

Does anyone have reason for more optimism?

The top 3 with 4,000,000 words have about 20 times as many words that the 0.14% percentile (at rank 1000) with 200,000 words.

In between (at rank 500) your at about 450,000 words, so its not a true power law. Because a drop of a factor 9 per 500 ranks would suggest that rank 1000 were at about 50000 words.

The power radiated is T^4, but 70c is only about 17.1% warmer than 20c because you need to compare in kelvin.

Buybacks for manipulating share prices and earnings per share are indeed silly. But they should also be trivial to compensate for by normalising on market cap instead of a single share.