1
2
 
 

Britain should be prepared for an AI-powered cyberattack on its critical national infrastructure in the next two years, the UK's National Cyber Security Centre said on Tuesday, adding that China was likely the best equipped to conduct such operations.

Richard Horne, chief executive of the NCSC, which is part of the GCHQ spy agency, said far too many organisations and supply chains in Britain had got away with "doing tech on the cheap" for decades, leaving them vulnerable.

...

"But we must be clear that is not because AI has invented new ways to attack us, but because vulnerabilities that have been tolerated for far too long can now be discovered and exploited at a scale that was once unimaginable."

In its annual report (pdf), the NCSC said it was highly likely there would be  a ransomware attack involving AI-powered malware by 2028 on the nation's critical infrastructure.

During that same period, it warned that AI use by hostile actors was also set to enhance the scale and efficiency of their operations.

...

3
4
5
 
 

How about making Marky Mark resign instead?!

6
7
8
 
 

If you want to know whether artificial intelligence is a gigantic economic bubble, don’t just take pundits’ word for it. Major investors are now moving their money to try to protect themselves from the AI bubble popping.

For an industry that we’re told is central to our collective future, the artificial intelligence (AI) industry increasingly seems to be built on a combination of artificially inflated hopes and bad accounting.

The industry’s critics have been raising concerns about its finances for a while: the fact that most of its flagship firms are grossly unprofitable, that they’ve had to jack up their prices to try break even (leading their business customers to pump the brakes on using their products), or that many of the eye-popping investment announcements that are meant to show demand for AI is strong have actually been circular financing — meaning different AI firms cycling money to and from each other.

But none of it has seemed to slow the industry’s boom or the relentless hype machine behind it. Until now, anyway. It used to be that you mostly heard concerns about the industry’s underlying economics in newspapers, blogs, social media posts, and podcasts, and that those concerns went completely unreflected in the markets. But these concerns seem now to have finally bled over into investors’ thinking.

9
10
 
 

In today's episode of the brain-in-a-jar show, scientists have built brain analog organoids consisting of about 10,000 neurons that can classify braille letters with about 61 percent accuracy, while teams of three organoids reached 83 percent accuracy.

11
12
13
14
15
Neural Networks Are Already Clean (already-clean.goodfire.com)
submitted 3 weeks ago by to c/Aii@programming.dev
16
17
 
 

The paper challenges the assumption that language models need explicit tokenizers to be efficient demonstrating that standard flat Transformers can process raw byte sequences and actually outperform traditional subword models as parameter sizes scale. The prevailing thought in the field has been that processing raw bytes is computationally inefficient because the sequences are substantially longer. A typical subword contains around four bytes. The authors argue that this extra sequence length is actually a feature that provides useful additional computation under the same parameter budget. By implementing token-superposition training and hash embeddings, the byte models consistently hit lower optimal loss than subword models at matched parameter counts.

It's also interesting to see how the byte model handles the lack of explicit text abstractions. We usually rely on tokenizers to group characters into meaningful chunks, but it turns out that byte Transformers implicitly develop their own local abstractions without needing specialized hierarchical architectures. When tested on a copying task, the model attention concentrated heavily on a small set of specific segmentation positions rather than attending uniformly across the text. The researchers proved the strength of these internal structures by freezing up to a quarter of the intermediate layers and forcing them to process only these locally aggregated representations. The model maintained its downstream performance without any additional training, proving that the hierarchy of local abstraction and global reasoning emerges naturally within a standard Transformer.

Also, per-byte loss distribution showed massive variance compared to subword models. A huge number of byte positions have near-zero loss showing that the model is highly confident about most bytes in a word and only struggles near the boundaries of its learned local structures where the actual information density lies. This creates a massive opportunity for speculative decoding. Because so many bytes are predictable continuations, a small drafting model can accurately guess large chunks of the sequence. The authors found that a byte-level drafting model gets roughly 3.4 times more accepted tokens per target forward pass than a subword equivalent which easily offsets the sequential overhead of processing individual bytes.

In empirical tests, byte Transformers showed massive improvements in tasks requiring fine-grained perception. They achieved around a 40% relative improvement on CUTE word manipulation scores and a 20% boost on OCRBench compared to subword models. The implications for future language model design is that we might be nearing the end of rigid subword vocabularies. Sequence length, learned abstractions, and compute allocation are now closely connected dimensions for future architectures. Instead of building complex hierarchical networks to compress bytes, designers can use flat Transformers with sparse mixture of experts to reduce activated computation while letting the model allocate its compute dynamically to the hardest parts of a text. This could also drastically improve multimodal models because byte-level representations align much better with fine-grained visual features than arbitrary subword tokens do.

18
19
20
 
 

About 13 years ago I made https://jeena.net/catdog using machine learning algorithms to classify pictures of faces of dogs and cats and decide if we're looking at a cat or a dog. I was in university and this was what I came up with doing for one of the assignments in the ML course.

Another guy came up with a evolutionary way to find math formulas which would over time be able to get closer and closer to a specific shape of a graph by doing copies and introducing random mutations to them, it was also very fascinating.

Anyway, now that Jev came out the decision models are all the rage right now but I'm struggling to quite understand how different they are from what I did as a student in 2013. Is the big difference that I don't need to manually choose the features to extract and do the preperation of the raw images? Or is there really something fundamentally new to their approach?

21
22
23
24
25
view more: next ›