211–220 of 347 posts
25M isn’t even that much money. Not only are they whores, they’re cheap whores.
Honestly, this makes me almost feel better about the whole situation. I had been finding it super unsettling: Like, why would DoD go nuclear over wanting to build fully autonomous weapons… with Claude? But no, it’s just run-of-the-mill Trump administration corruption. Phew!
Unfortunately the article is wrong, the OpenAI deal relents on exactly what Anthropic wouldn't. The OpenAI deal is "you can do anything that's 'legal'". This is the same as "zero restrictions", in the real world. Anthropic was offered the same and said "no, these two usecases are not allowed, period".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As they first were in Google. So because you saw it once in one company, it will happen in every company? By that logic, wont Claude eventually get ads too, even though they are saying that they wont? Even now, Google ads wrap around the content, they don't mess with the search results. > Were you around then? Yes. I was around for AltaVista, WebCrawler, and Lycos too. None of those were LLMs.
I think it is a good bet that Claude will eventually get ads too, if they don't drop the consumer segment. Ads are free money; most don't care.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In actual functioning democracies political donations are capped severely. Say, a single donor can contribute a maximum of €6,000 per parliament candidate per election. Yes, that's a real limit.
We used to have laws like that, but apparently our supreme court believes that bribing politicians is political speech, and curtailing that speech is unconstitutional, so... It's so broken.
To the extent that a pretty big chunk of donations are used to fund very short movies (we call them ads) for or against candidates, I'm not sure how that can be distinguished. I could see how one would distinguish get-out-the-vote or other similar non-speech type activities, but those on the Left seem to not oppose such expenditures.
[dead]
Guy's the worlds most successful grifter who has world economies by the... anyway...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think I disagree much with what you said, but frankly I think that is a task for other people. I am exceedingly impatient with this kind of stuff, from people that I think should know better. I try to avoid these arguments now entirely and live in my happy progressive NYC bubble. No doubt that diplomacy with this stuff is necessary but I don't think that that's something anyone should want me specifically for…
I think what you’ve said is thoughtful and honest and I disagree with the downvotes. I’m one of the politically homeless, and not even a resident of the USA, so I suppose I have an easy out. Life can be very hard, and I don’t fault anyone for prioritizing their life over a political situation that is so very hard to affect. I do appreciate those that dedicate themselves though, the ones that seem to be helping and no…
It’s not like I am apolitical; I donate money to causes I support, and I am generally willing to argue my beliefs if it’s something I believe it. I have my opinions, many of them very strong.
I am just saying that I am not an ambassador. I don’t really have a strong desire to “convert” people, and I don’t think I am the right person for that particular job. There’s value in it and I am ok with people doing it. Just not me.
How does Brockman sleep at night? These guys used to seem like standup ethical guys. It seems no amount of intellectualism is enough to ward off the poison of wealth.
In oligarchy, connections and donations decide.
It sure look like the US is transitioning from the former to the latter"
I honestly can't understand how anyone sees things this way. The US isn't transitioning at all. It is and has been a complete oligarchy for at least 70 years.
I've taken to discounting any political talking-head that wont consistently acknowledge and push that axiom as THE fundamental assumption of all political discourse.