221–230 of 252 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In other words, your original comment was pointless speculation with no real basis.
you're welcome to educate yourself if you don't trust anons on the internet.
> Anthropic occupies a peculiar position in the AI landscape: a company that genuinely believes it might be building one of the most transformative and potentially dangerous technologies in human history, yet presses forward anyway. This isn't cognitive dissonance but rather a calculated bet—if powerful AI is coming regardless, Anthropic believes it's better to have safety-focused labs at the frontier than to cede th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not part of the system prompt.
It's very unclear to me how it could be recovered if it wasn't part of the system prompt, especially how Claude knows it's called the "soul doc" if that was an internal nickname. I mean, obviously we know how it happened - the text was shown to it during late-era post-training or SFT multiple times. That's the only way it could have memorized it. But I don't see the point in having it memorize such a document.
I imagine that if you use them hard enough with the same exact text, you can attain full word for word memorization. This may be intentional, or a side effect of trying to wire other knowledge into the model while this document is also loaded into the context.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's just because China makes it's money from other sources, not from AI, and from what I've read, the advantage of China killing the US's AI advantage is killing it's stock market / disrupting. Seems like it may have a chance of working if you look at the companies highest valued on the S&P 500: NVIDIA, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Meta Platforms, Broadcom, Alphabet (Class C),
The share of revenue that Microsoft, Google, Meta, Apple, Alphabet and Amazon are currently deriving from the AI market as a share of their total revenue, is less than 10%.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Never suggested anything of the sort, involvement doesn’t mean direct control, it might be a passive ‘let us know if there’s progress’ issued privately, it might also be a passive ‘we want to be #1 in AI in 2030’ announced publicly, neither requires any micromanagement whatsoever: CCP’s expectation is companies figuring out how to align to party directives themselves… or face consequences.
Unlike the US, where there are no consequences for not aligning with the ruling party's directives.
The difference between the CCP, where "private" companies must actively pursue the party's strategic interests or cease to exist (and their executives/employees can be killed), and the US, where neither of those things happen and the worst penalty for a company not following the government's direction (while continuing to follow the law, which should be an obvious caveat) is the occasional fine for not complying with regulation or losing preference for government contracts, is categorical.
Only those who are either totally ignorant or seeking to spread propaganda would even compare the two.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I predict that billionaires will pay to build their own completely unrestricted LLMs that will happily help them get away with crimes and steal as much money as possible.
Crimes generally don't pay and are not worth anyone's time. The reason poor people imagine billionaires commit lots of crimes is that the poor people don't know how to become rich; if they did, they would've done it already. Since they do know how to commit crimes, they imagine that's how you do it but bigger. The reason criminals commit crimes is that criminals are dumb and have poor impulse control. (This is the sa…
If they are billionaires and didn't commit crimes (that we know of) then they are just smart rich people.
If they committed crimes while becoming or being rich, then they were just silly criminals.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read a lot. I'm not saying nobody died at Tiananmen, but framing it as a massacre is specifically a US/NATO narrative.
I really hate the way people like you talk about "narratives". I care about facts. Are denying it was a massacre? How many people do you think were killed?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The reason criminals commit crimes is that criminals are dumb and have poor impulse control. What makes you believe this? Any data to support this claim? It's inconsistent with the majority of research I've read on the topic but I'm no expert.
You're reading research that says they're geniuses? As far as I know lack of self-control is the main factor. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8095718/ (see "Self-Control as Criminality" although it has a lot of caveats) The other two are "being a young man" and lead poisoning, which are both versions of being dumb. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016604622...
I didn't say this
> ...
Re the rest. Thanks. I had implicitly assumed we were talking about financial or white collar crimes rather than all crimes. In other words the types of crimes people generally assume that richer people commit (insider training, tax evasion, wage theft, etc.)
I think you are correct in the most general sense of "all crime"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Mac, alt-minus. I've been using Macs for decades; it's called the Option key; no seasoned Mac user calls it "Alt". I know when a PC-style keyboard is attached to a Mac, the Alt key functions as the Option key. [1] - Option-minus creates an en dash - Option-Shift-minus creates an em dash [1]: https://support.apple.com/guide/mac-help/intro-to-mac-keyboa... [2]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/em-dash-en-dash-…
It says “alt” on it