Given there are cases of sudden onset autism being resolved with antifungals, it’s at least not implausible that fecal transplants could be effective too.
There are so many claims of autism being cured in a couple people with different drugs or supplements out there.
They’re always followed by thousands of self-experimenters where nobody can reproduce the result.
The explanation is almost always placebo effect. A parent or doctor is so convinced that they’ve found a cure that they change assume it worked, change their behavior toward the autistic person, and believe that a dramatic change has occurred.
This is also why the placebo arm of every autism study also shows improvement.
No. No chance. It's completely implausible. This is reflected in their actual Phase II trial - NCT06503978 - whose primary endpoint is relieving GI symptoms. It's far from curing autism. It is idiosyncratic to target this population. They could do the same trial with healthy adults, but of course, twice daily massive laxatives is not something very marketable. The reason this product is the way it is is because ASD kids cannot really say no.
There’s some research on sudden onset autism being treated with antifungals; so at least sometimes a sudden change may be the result of something very specific in the gut.
I appreciate that the article correctly points out the core design flaw here of LLMs is the non-distinction between content and commands in prompts.
It’s unclear to me if it’s possible to significantly rethink the models to split those, but it seems that that is a minimal requirement to address the issue holistically.
The flaw isn't just in the design, it's in the requirements. People want an AI that reads text they didn't read and does the things the text says need to be done, because they don't want to do those things themselves. And they don't want to have to manually approve every little action the AI takes, because that would be too slow. So we get the equivalent of clicking "OK" on every dialog that pops up without reading it, which is also something that people often do to save a bit of time.
It absolutely is a problem with human assistants (though, of course, those are currently much smarter). But people can and have scammed assistants to steal money or personal details from their bosses. Phishing and social engineering are exactly forms of this same vulnerability. Of course, human assistants are smart enough to not get phished by, say, reading a book that happens to contain phrases that are similar to commands that their boss could give them, but that's just the current difference of intelligence and the hugely larger context windows humans still have compared to LLMs.
Ah, it's like the good old days when operating systems like DOS didn't really make the distinction between executable files and data files. It would happily let you run any old .exe from anywhere on Earth. Viruses used to spread like wildfire until Norton Antivirus came along.
You can't easily convince a remote computer to curl | bash itself. Worms spread because remote code execution was laughably easy back then. Also because computer hygiene was abysmal.
LLMs are more than happy to run curl | bash on your behalf, though. If agents gain any actual traction it's going to be a security nightmare. As mentioned in other comments, nobody wants to babysit them and so everyone just takes all the guardrails off.
That's not a valid vlan ID for most vendors (Reserved) and can also be a security vulnerability, as it can allow traffic to elevate its Class of Service and hop vlans via this method.
The obsession has at least one interesting question attached: ownership of real property. At the limit, at least, that becomes a genuinely interesting question.
> What problem, other than judicial review, does it solve for the executive branch?
It’s fairly obvious on its face the concern of the EO is not judicial review but about agencies that nominally are past of the branch the President heads determining interpretations of law contrary to what the head of the executive desires.
And, it does genuinely seem weird to have an executive branch where the head of that branch doesn’t actually control things.
The negative reaction is entirely because of the current executive head, but no one would bat an eye if this were Barack Obama reigning in some executive agency interpreting, say, immigration law in opposition to DACA.
> Is the head of the executive an expert in all things? And capable of communicating those expert desires with perfect clarity?
It's not their job to be the expert, it's their job to be the decisionmaker. That's why you have a head. If two federal agencies want to interpret the law differently, it's more important to pick one interpretation and apply it consistently than to get it perfectly right.
> Why have courts if the executive head can sort out all legal nuance themselves?
Checks and balances are important but so is the ability to actually do things occasionally. Independence for the court system is good. Independence for every individual federal agency isn't.
Sure, but an executive basically just implements the laws, not decide what they are. Given the US system this is important, as it's quite possible for the President not to have a majority in the legislature.
So you are saying that we are meant to believe the problem is that people (who exactly?) were formulating and acting on their own interpretations of the law, independent of either the executive or judiciary branches of government? Hmm. If the problem is so immediate it requires an EO, there must be some salient examples you can point me to.
I would react the same way to anyone who had announced we would never need to vote again, who had previously pardoned felons convicted in an attempted coup, and who was now centralizing governmental oversight and power. There is no comparison to another president in the last 150 years or more.
> And, it does genuinely seem weird to have an executive branch where the head of that branch doesn’t actually control things.
It's not weird at all, and it's not true that the head of the executive doesn't have control over those agencies. The head of the executive names their leadership - that is a huge amount of control. And it is enough control - the government isn't some top-down system serving at the pleasure of the president. It is a system for implementing the rules set out by Congress and the courts (subject to the President's judicial review powers), that the president coordinates.
The very title of "president" was chosen by the founding fathers to evoke the largely bureaucratic role they had in mind. It's not supposed to be a position of prestige or control like a dictator or ruler, it's similar to the role of a committee president: someone who oversees the functioning of the committee, and steer the general agenda, but who doesn't otherwise get to decide for the committee.
> no one would bat an eye if this were Barack Obama reigning in some executive agency
Obviously a counterfactual we can never truly know but I'd remind you that the right were offended when Obama wore a tan suit and was using Dijon mustard. I'm pretty sure they'd "bat an eye" if he were attempting even 1% of the shenanigans that Trump is pulling.
