Towards maximizing the sum of individual happiness, power, beauty and knowledge. Maybe a few other attributes in there, but these are the bare minimum that no civilization would deny for itself.
The question of course is 'how'. For the last few centuries, the answer has been technology.
> According to the 115-page complaint, Baig discovered through
> internal security testing that WhatsApp engineers could “move
> or steal user data” including contact information, IP addresses
> and profile photos “without detection or audit trail”.
That isn't really the breach you're making it out to be. Profile photos, unless made private/contacts only, are already publicly visible, and so is "contact information".
Of course these are useful to intelligence services, but this doesn't mean that Baig found they don't have true end-to-end encryption.
Really want to know what these "more interesting bits" are that GPT-5-thinking and other models of this calibre cannot do. Unless of course you choose to do them even though these models can in fact do them, in which case, please do share regardless.
But, and I hesitate to point it out, because I am finding that people think it is somehow minimal entry stakes, one does not need any of those things..
You wouldn't get very far without WeChat and AliPay in China. Last time a good friend of mine was there, many merchants simply refused to accept cash. The few that did had made it known how much they were inconvenienced by doing that.
Same for basically every interaction with locals, for accessing government services, or even just using the public transportation.
It's pretty similar for locals AFAIK.
And before anyone replies that he didn't have to travel there — no, he did, unless he was willing to look for another job (which are very sparse here, you hold on to a good job for dear life).
I think this just further demonstrates the truth behind the truly small & scrappy teams culture at OpenAI that an ex-employee recently shared [1].
Even with the way the presenters talk, you can sort of see that OAI prioritizes speed above most other things, and a naive observer might think they are testing things a million different ways before releasing, but actually, they're not.
If we draw up a 2x2 for Danger (High/Low) versus Publicity (High/Low), it seems to me that OpenAI sure has a lot of hits in the Low-Danger High-Publicity quadrant, but probably also a good number in the High-Danger Low-Publicity quadrant -- extrapolating purely from the sheer capability of these models and the continuing ability of researchers like Pliny to crack through it still.
Key highlights in addition to the model quality itself:
* real-time router that quickly decides which model to use based on conversation type, complexity, tool needs, and explicit intent (for example, if you say “think hard about this” in the prompt)
* router is continuously trained on real signals, including when users switch models, preference rates for responses, and measured correctness, improving over time.
> Toronto, where immigrants from the subcontinent grow up in enclaves surrounded by other immigrants.
Citation please, because this is sweeping. Two questions to consider:
1. Are these enclaves representative of the subcontinent, or of a few over-represented communities that is actually a small fraction of the Indian subcontinental population?
2. Of all the people from the Indian subcontinent here, how many live in enclaves versus otherwise?
In typical SV style, this is just to throw it out there and let second order effects build up. At some point I expect OpenAI to simply form a partnership with LinkedIn and Amazon.
In fact, I suspect LinkedIn might even create a new tier that you'd have to use if you want to use LinkedIn via OpenAI.
I do data work in domains that are closely related to LinkedIn (sales and recruitment), and let me tell you, the chances that LinkedIn lets any data get out of the platform are very slim.
They have some of the strongest anti-bot measures in the world and they even prosecute companies that develop browser extensions for manual extraction. They would prevent people from writing LinkedIn info with pen and paper, if they could. Their APIs are super-rudimentary and they haven't innovated in ages. Their CRM integrations for their paid products (ex: Sales Nav) barely allow you to save info into the CRM and instead opt for iframe style widgets inside your CRM so that data remains within their moat.
Unless you show me how their incentives radically change (ex: they can make tons of money while not sacrificing any other strategic advantage), I will continue to place a strong bet on them being super defensive about data exfiltration.
Would that income be more than the lost ad revenue (as applicants stop visiting their site) plus lost subscriptions on the employer side (as AI-authored applications make the site useless to them)? Who knows but probably MS are betting on no.
Hiring companies certainly don’t want bots to write job applications. They are already busy weeding out the AI-written applications and bots would only accelerate their problem. Hiring companies happen to be paying customers of LinkedIn.
Job applications aren't the only use case for using LinkedIn in this connected way, but even on that topic -- I think we are moving pretty quickly to no longer need to "weed out" AI-written applications.
As adoption increases, there's going to be a whole spectrum of AI-enabled work that you see out there. So something that doesn't appear to be AI written is not necessarily pure & free of AI. Not to mention the models themselves getting better at not sounding AI-style canned. If you want to have a filter for lazy applications that are written with a 10-word prompt using 4o, sure, that is actually pretty trivial to do with OpenAI's own models, but is there another reason you think companies "don't want bots to write job applications"?
The word "beat" and "mercenaries" are also quite important here -- to me, this is Altman's way of saying "you losers who left OpenAI, you will pay a steep price, because we will mess with you really deeply". The threat to Meta is just a natural consequence of that, to the extent that Meta clings onto said individuals.
The question of course is 'how'. For the last few centuries, the answer has been technology.