471–480 of 518 posts
>This was announced on 5:21 PM on a Friday. Sorta a suspicious time. Whenever someone does something intentionally on a Friday evening, my first thought is ‘o, the markets.’ The insider trading kleptocrat has found a new toy
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ask a recent college grad if the world is drastically different today then when they started college.
If you mean employment, the world is different because of rising debt, declining economies, and a crazy leader currently in charge of the most powerful country on the planet. If you asked me when I graduated if the world was drastically different from when I first entered university I would also say yes, and I graduated well before GPT2.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do get your point about speeds and ease of producing working code. This kind of quick win can be a good example of AI assisted tooling. But I don't generate scripts that way as I prefer to have composable blocks that I can reuse later. AI is not great at reusable code. Another things I noticed with AI assisted programming is the one track thinking. Someone has an idea, generate a working sample and then it becomes…
But what about compositions of your reusable blocks an order of magnitude larger than you were ordinarily willing to manually compose? A lot of this misnaming Im circling around comes down to demanding that the ai user must be giving up their agency. Whatever you can name as a good practice you don't think an AI agent is a capable of employing on its own, I can retort that a human can demand the agent employ it, alon…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For American AI models better than Opus 4.8. The much-decried EU AI Act provides a safe, predictable regulatory framework to base ones AI development on. It provides legal stability compared to unpredictable arbitrary decisions by the US executive. If AI companies have any sort of sense in them, they'd be well-advised to consider relocating to Europe.
The EU AI Act killed Mistral. It's not a stable or reasonable base.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Fair enough. I am just a lot more sceptical than you are about firstly, how well anarchy would work (I do not think it would scale up to the size of modern societies), and secondly how quickly it would be replaced by else and how bad that something else would be.
For the other, that's up for debate. They might just be replaced by misery on the current trajectory too.
I've really come around to trusting OpenAI a lot more than Anthropic the past few months. Reading between the lines of his own output, Dario Amodei comes off as both a dogmatic believer in ASI as a perfect, infallible ruler for humanity and quite an extreme American nationalist. The company, likewise, looks to be in ideological lockstep. I could see them, say, allowing or consciously creating runaway ASI they believe…
Have you seen what people do to their own family members over inheritances? You “trust” OpenAI?
“Who's being naive, Kay?” - God Father
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Meanwhile, HN has anchored on "marketing hype" as the only possible explanation The Claude.ai web prompt has an undismissable "Claude Fable 5 is current unavailable" notice. I'm not saying it's 100% a stunt. But...Anthropic really wants you to know about it.
And if they didn't have this all of HN would rant about how they aren't even telling you that their best model is unavailable, despite having a subscription. If they tell you, it's a marketing stunt; if they don't, they're being deceptive.
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.
The problem is not a presumption that government can't ever be good. The problem is that the team you personally think is "good" won't be in charge forever. Everyone loves enabling broad government authority when people they like happen to be in charge. Sooner or later, a government that is "bad" (for any possible definition of "bad" that you personally approve of) will someday be in charge. Then, suddenly, enabling…
This weird hyper politicization is young in terms of the US.
And again you don't acknowledge that "government control" is too vague a metric to be useful.
The government has some form of control by virtue of existing so if you want to be critical of it you need to be more specific.
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.
> Reductionist "if only the government didn't get involved" doesn't work unless you presume no government is beneficial One can believe a government shouldn't get involved in *some* things without subscribing to the belief that "no government is beneficial".
Don't say "government involvement is bad" specify what exactly you mean.
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 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. Hardly non-sensical. You just have a different default.
If you say government control is bad in general you are just saying there shouldn't be government.
This is impossible as the things the government does will happen it would just be under a different label.
That is all I meant by non-sensical, you need to be more specific to have a real point.