Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

There is a shadow hanging over this Fable thing

12gramsofcarbon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 518 posts

Re: There is a shadow hanging over this Fable thing

#271

Post by drevil-v2 »

This kills the entire enterprise market for AI models better than Opus 4.8

1) No one is going to build any workflows/capabilities that could have the underlying intelligence rug pulled instantly by a bureaucracy or malevolent politician.

2) Even if a company was silly enough to take on the risk, is Anthropic going to ask all their enterprise customers to provide passports for all their employees and then setup individual Claude accounts for each and every employee of each and every enterprise customer in order to gatekeep access to Mythos? Because a plain ole api key no longer cuts it

Re: There is a shadow hanging over this Fable thing

#272

Post by basilikum »

latexr wrote: post #174
usef- wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I said this in the other thread, but they were proven right about their gpt2 worries, weren't they? From the original 2019 release: > We can also imagine the application of these models for malicious purposes , including the following (or other applications we can’t yet anticipate): Generate misleading news articles Impersonate others online Automate the production of abusive or faked content to post on social media…

> The public at large will need to Ah, yes. You see, it’s not them who are wrong for knowingly releasing something they knew to be harmful, it’s everyone else who needs to change. That seems reasonable. Humanity is famous for being able to rapidly adapt to fast changes as one voice. Oh, wait… They are no different to the tobacco and oil companies. They know the harm they’re causing but care about personal profit abou…

Yes, it's not their fault, that people are using the tool they made in a malicious way.

I hate ClosedAI as much as the next guy, but this is an extremely illiberal take. It's not the kitchen knife manufacturer's fault that people are using their product for murder, it's not my fault that people are doing crimes over the Tor relay I run.

The Tobacco industry is evil because it misleads the public about its product being poisonous and bribes politicians through widespread corruption. Tobacco is also different because it is not a neutral tool that can be used for good and bad, but poisonous and will harm you no matter how you use it.

Re: There is a shadow hanging over this Fable thing

#273

Post by lostmsu »

tripledry wrote: post #232
echelon wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the people on HN thinking this stuff is garbage won't be working in tech in five years. There simply won't be jobs for them. The risk is that all of these very incredibly smart and disgruntled people decide to do something about it. Elite overproduction, but instead as a result of enormous shift in supply side economics.

I'll believe it when I see it.

Can't you see there are many people strictly dumber than AI already? And that percentage is rapidly growing?

Re: There is a shadow hanging over this Fable thing

#274

Post by Certhas »

modeless wrote: post #22

> But this government [...] I'm hearing a lot of this kind of thing. "Oh if only it was a different government". I'm sorry, but when you cry out for government involvement, it's not always going to be coming from the government you personally wanted. This is the whole problem with government involvement! I don't think that message is getting through, but it's the real lesson that should be learned here.

We should demand and work towards good public institutions that do their job. It's perfectly consistent to say "this is a job that legitimate democratic institutions should perform" and complain that currently the legitimacy of institutions is undermined.

Let's take your argument to it's extreme point: The state should never regulate anything because the state might be bad!

This is structurally the same fallacy as "people shouldn't be allowed to do anything, because some people are bad!".

Re: There is a shadow hanging over this Fable thing

#275

Post by renegade-otter »

imjonse wrote: post #126
dxuh wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it should be noted that the current government, which did this silly thing, belongs to a party that is pretty much advertising on wanting to be a smaller government that gets involved less. That is a large part of why people vote for them.

Small government has always been a euphemism for a government working on less distribution of wealth. Governments always intervene in the economy one way or another.

That's exactly right. The US Government is ruthlessly efficient - yeah, people don't want to hear that. Sure, there are Pentagon-related boondoggles, but that's different.

Try working in a government office - you will be lucky to get a water cooler - BYOW.

"Small government" means "fuck you, I got mine, now let's gut the IRS so I can do some white collar crime".

Re: There is a shadow hanging over this Fable thing

#276

Post by coldtea »

dns_snek wrote: post #192
coldtea wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's the constitutional bedrock of our societies. That doesn't mean it's always true but if you denounce that as a legitimate and achievable goal then you don't have a society anymore. Sure you do. You just don't have a society that looks like ours does. And that doesn't necessarily mean monarchy or fascism or chaos as the only alternative. The society you do get, might still even have a government too! Thinking…

> Sure you do. You just don't have a society that looks like ours does. You've skipped a few steps, until you overthrow the government all you have a broken society with a system of governance that's deemed to be illegitimate, therefore its rules and actions are illegitimate. If you want to tear up the constitution and implement a new system of governance with "less government" then you're effectively advocating for…

>You've skipped a few steps, until you overthrow the government all you have a broken society with a system of governance that's deemed to be illegitimate, therefore its rules and actions are illegitimate.

Sure, so? We did that quite a few times in the past, that's how we dont' still have Pharaohs.

>If you want to tear up the constitution and implement a new system of governance with "less government" then you're effectively advocating for a revolution. Just be honest and don't try to sell this as an incremental policy change.

Who said it has to be an incremental policy change? The claim I responded to was:

"That's the constitutional bedrock of our societies. That doesn't mean it's always true but if you denounce that as a legitimate and achievable goal then you don't have a society anymore."

You still get one. It's just not something you get while conveniently sitting on your ass and voting once every few years.

Re: There is a shadow hanging over this Fable thing

#277

Post by mlrtime »

gwerbin wrote: post #250
FiberBundle wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of these republicans/libertarians only want the government to leave them alone. They don't care when a company they aren't affiliated with is regulated. You can see Marc Andreesen celebrating the government's decision on Anthropic. Similarly, when Silicon Valley Bank went bankrupt, libertarians such as David Sacks were loudly calling for government bailouts. It's just hypocrisy all the way up.

The entire movement of conservatism in America is a propaganda operation oriented around manufacturing consent for a return to the Gilded Age. It is entirely bankrupt of morals and has been from the beginning. If you personally are a conservative, now is a good time to take a good hard honest look at the history of your movement in American politics. There might even still be time to realign yourself with a movement…

This is garbage reposted in every HN article that starts to talk about any related to politics.

I will gladly live in a conservative county over progressive one. And reading this paragraph in a article about AI is complete nonsense. This is a go touch grass moment if you needed one.

Re: There is a shadow hanging over this Fable thing

#278

Post by graemep »

simonask wrote: post #206
flanked-evergl wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Actual full democracy is predicated on a fairly large number of fundamental rights, as well as duties. This is an entirely modern idea and really has nothing to do with the concept. It's the typical leftist tendency to appropriate a word that people see as good and then redefine it to be something which the leftist themselves want, and then hope that people still associate it with good. It's the same thing with the…

> This is an entirely modern idea and really has nothing to do with the concept. It's Voltaire (1694-1778). Depending how you count, The Enlightenment is or isn't part of modernity. Did you think democracy was not a modern idea? It unequivocally is. The word comes from Ancient Greek, but what they did had almost nothing to do with the current definition of the word. This focus on ethnic groups that you have is simply…

I think its possible to take a stronger position as the roots of the modern idea are definitely pre-modern and not significantly influenced by ancient Greece. Democracy and human rights evolved together. From things such as the Witan and the moots in England ( https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofp... ) and traditional laws that were gradually extended over time (the Magna Carter, for example). Similar histories in other countries too.

> reeks of Blut und Boden

Definitely linked to that sort of thinking. It sounds very inspired by 18th/19th century ideas of race (the ideas based on science that was debunked by the mid 20th century and has been thoroughly disproved by genetics).

The problem with these sorts of arguments is they take little bit of truth and some real examples (there are societies with politics is very tied into ethnic identities, there are groups defined by culture and language that want their own states) and treats them as the norm.

Re: There is a shadow hanging over this Fable thing

#279

Post by coldtea »

graemep wrote: post #186
coldtea wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>No government at all implies anarchy* No government at all can just imply anarchism, ie. a kind of self-governing that doesn't ascribe to our conventional ideas about government, presidents, pms, members of parliament, senators, etc.

That is what I meant by anarchy - the state anarchism wants to achieve. Collins dictionary says anarchy is "4. the theory or practice of political anarchism" but it seems it might be a British usage. I do not think it is something that will work in practice, nor do I think it would be stable if it did.

There are two common uses of the term anarchy (and likely more, your definition appears to be the fourth in that dictionary).

Anarchy as in political/social chaos, where "everything goes" Mad Max style, and anarchy as in a volunteer governance system of direct democracy with no coercive authority.

The way you wrote it "which is worse than all but the very worst governments, and from which IMO some form of government will emerge anyway.", implied to me the former.

If you meant the latter, I'd call it absolute much better than the "very worst governments" and likely better than even the best traditional governments. Whether it can be long term stable is debatable, but a different claim. In any case, what we have is neither that well working, nor that stable.

Re: There is a shadow hanging over this Fable thing

#280

Post by Certhas »

slopinthebag wrote: post #89
Guvante wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reductionist "if only the government didn't get involved" doesn't work unless you presume no government is beneficial (it is not since you just recreate all the bad parts of government anyway) You can be critical of the policy of export controls and the meaning of them in modern day but saying it is a problem with the government in general is nonsensical.

You can reverse it. "If the government gets involved" doesn't work unless you presume government is beneficial (it is not since you just recreate all the bad parts of no government anyway).

The idea that government could _not_ be involved is nonsense. You simply don't perceive some government involvement as involvement because you take it for granted. The only question is where do you personally want to draw the line, and by what principles do we organise government involvement.

You probably don't want the government to stop being involved in securing your property or maintaining roads. None of the tech firms want the government to stop being involved in securing IP rights. Etc. etc. etc...

Post reply on HN