Andrew 🇺🇦

ML/AI

[Andrew 🇺🇦 @andripast31]

@ItsJamesHall What are the reasons?

[Andrew 🇺🇦 @andripast31]

@alexanderrX_ What are your expenses per month living there? approx.?

[Andrew 🇺🇦 @andripast31]

@dmytroomelian Traveler visa?

[Andrew 🇺🇦 @andripast31]

@0xSero - Agents w/ local: I build multi-agent LLM systems for a living and run an agent fleet on that box. Local-model side is new: currently building an eval/observability harness around a small local model on it

[Andrew 🇺🇦 @andripast31]

@0xSero - GPU RTX 3050 Ti Laptop, 4GB VRAM on a 24/7 Linux home server (i9-11900H, 14 GB RAM).
- Omarchy : not yet set up, happy to onboard this week

[Andrew 🇺🇦 @andripast31]

@Aniketh_Deb At some point you will stumble into results that will look "suspicious", you will have to do a deep dive into code and debbug for a couple of hours yourself and if you don't know how to do it correctly — you won't verify the results

[Scott @scottstts]

My god this is such a good speech that every SWE needs to hear. You know what? Every person should hear it

Keep the happy memories, eyes on the reality, be excited about the future. That’s the best that anyone can do

[Andrew 🇺🇦 @andripast31]

@alexanderrX_ Are you looking for new people in the team?

[Andrew 🇺🇦 @andripast31]

I wish instagram would have AI to discuss posts, same way X has Grok

[Andrew 🇺🇦 @andripast31]

How you all build diagrams with AI?

[Andrew 🇺🇦 @andripast31]

@paulg Ive got an idea for startup

[Andrew 🇺🇦 @andripast31]

@ericzakariasson Do you have a prompt for harness improving, by establishing better documentation and dev workflow specific for the project?

[Andrew 🇺🇦 @andripast31]

@alexanderrX_ And it will change very fast very soon,

It took me one evening to explaning on what harness, agents and how MCP works to my non-tech girlfriend;

now she builds her own harness and really enjoy results she get

people will adapt in a matter of weeks

[Andrew Ng @AndrewYNg]

The loudest voices stoking fears about AI dangers have made tremendous headway in the past two weeks. AI technology has not taken some unexpected, dangerous turn, but the hype around it — propelled by what appears to be a well orchestrated PR campaign — has drummed up considerable fear. I worry that it represents a setback for our field.

I have written frequently that fears of AI are overhyped. AI’s capabilities can be uncannily human-like and unpredictable, and it’s rational to worry when people who are directly involved express concerns. But I see the problems as a sign of the engineering work that ahead, rather than insurmountable barriers or the sky falling. AI technology continues to advance — which is a good thing! — but technical advances, poorly understood by the public, give those who seek to generate hype repeated opportunities to do so.

First, I don’t see any step up in the risk of human extinction from AI compared to a few months ago. The theories about this remain the same fantastical, science fiction scenarios as a few months ago. The biggest change in AI risk is its cybersecurity capabilities — a topic which we should take seriously — but this, too, will not lead to the end of the world.

The most notable recent event leading to increased fear was when an OpenAI team deployed an agent swarm that hacked into Hugging Face. Much of the popular press contained significant hype. For example, some publications reported that a swarm of 1,200 agents carried out the attack. While this was technically accurate, as I write this, I have about 1,300 processes running on my laptop. Yes, the ability to get large swarms of agents to work in parallel on a task is a significant technical advance, And, in computing, many processes run at the same time. So this shouldn’t be seen as some magical capability.

Additionally, OpenAI’s buggy sandboxing and monitoring processes were key to enabling this incident. Fixing these bugs and putting in place improved monitoring would be appropriate fixes, not pausing AI. There are many well known ways to attack software systems. The main advantage of AI agents is that they are relentless. They will tirelessly try many tactics — and have the patience to chain vulnerabilities together — that previously would have taken an infeasible amount of human effort. But in the long term, I believe the advantage will lie with defenders (because they have more information with which to identify bugs, which they can fix), but the cyber-threat landscape has changed significantly. There are still bottlenecks to identifying and exploiting a vulnerability. AI agents still have to try a lot of things to see what works, and taking these actions takes time and might be detected by defenders. This is why, even though it is now easy to obtain versions of leading open weight models that have had their guardrails removed or weakened, so they will not refuse to try to execute cyber attacks, the world has not ended.

I am also concerned about the anthropomorphization of AI in a lot of reporting, where LLMs and agents are unnecessarily treated as if they were people. If I wield a hammer, miss a nail, and accidentally dent the wall, it’s not the fault of the hammer. The problem lies in how I used the hammer. Similarly, if I prompt an agent and it hacks into someone else’s system, the responsibility lies with me, not the agent.

Of course, we want to build systems that are as safe and predictable as possible. (For example, an unsafe hammer would be one whose head randomly flies off under normal use.) Today’s agentic systems are not predictable, but I see no reason why, by applying sound engineering practices, we won’t be able to make them extremely safe to use. One new element in the forecasts of AI-enabled doom is AI companies disclaiming responsibility for their own products. “I didn’t do it; my out-of-control agent did!” There’s a balance to be struck between the responsibility of the tool maker and the tool user, but when something goes wrong, let’s hold the people building and/or using the hammer responsible, rather than the hammer. (By the way, if you’re worried about AI bioweapon risk, David Bellamy has a great post on why this, too, is overhyped. Briefly, the bottleneck in building a bioweapon is not intelligence, but lab work and manufacturing.)

Pausing AI progress will create much more harm than benefit. First, our adversaries will certainly not slow down. Second, engineering requires discovering problems empirically so we can fix them. If we pause AI by a decade, we will also delay finding and implementing safety engineering fixes by about the same duration.

Of course, the incentive to stoke fears — for regulatory capture, to garner attention, or to make one’s technology seem more powerful — remains the same as before. Disclaiming responsibility is a new one. Taking a hard technical look at the actual risks however, I see little factual basis for the degree of fear that’s been stoked up. We still have hard research and engineering work ahead to improve AI safety, but the beneficial applications continue to vastly outweigh the risks, and we should keep building.

[Original text (with links): https://t.co/jni2tWazAH ]

[Andrew 🇺🇦 @andripast31]

@v0xium Its Ok when things are changing

[Gillian Branstetter @GBBranstetter]

Okay this is pretty funny though

[Shaun Maguire @shaunmmaguire]

I’ve been in Ukraine the last two weeks and didn’t have access to my X account

Learned a ton

Massive respect to the Ukrainian people, who are deeply misunderstood by many in the West

Will write something up in a week or so

[ThePrimeagen @ThePrimeagen]

At this point Bryan Johnson has more uptime than GitHub

[Andrew 🇺🇦 @andripast31]

@mattpocockuk How dto validate they actually want that before I will step up for initiative?

[Andrew 🇺🇦 @andripast31]

@ColinMcDermott @whop Why London?