251–257 of 257 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks. I thought the other commenter was referring to a story on the site.
Some of the stories looked off, so I dug into the site a bit more and who owned it.
I read the story about the funding of immigrant support groups. While it was obviously slanted, it didn't quite get as far as "white replacement". It's a good example of why dog whistles have to be taken seriously.
Okay, so all of these instances of AI supposedly "escaping containment" were orchestrated by a gaggle of effective altruists, who hired a gaggle of effective altruists, to make the public freak out about AI. Occam's Razor never leads us astray, does it.
The alternative explanation requires a conspiracy and an enormous amount of lying to the public. Is it possible? Certainly. But Occam’s Razor would not point us in this direction because conspiracy is a more complicated explanation, not a less complicated one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How can they exclude training costs?? How is that not fraud? At the exact same time they're literally saying they will never stop training unless the state bans all their competitors
They aren’t a public company. GAAP does not apply. They can say whatever the fuck they want.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How can they exclude training costs?? How is that not fraud? At the exact same time they're literally saying they will never stop training unless the state bans all their competitors
When we're looking at whether the company is "insolvent" then they definitely could stop training and it's worth checking if they would survive in that situation, at least for a while.
Genuinely: what is with everyone saying “headline is misleading, none of this had to do with Hugging Face”, when nothing about the article makes any claims with regards to Hugging Face whatsoever? Is it supposed to be the article's (or headline's?) fault that you hallucinated additional context that was never there? It's very strange seeing this take on this article being repeated here and elsewhere on the Internet.…
https://podcast24.fi/jaksot/the-auron-macintyre-show/how-bid...
There's a related story on the effort.news site, "The $1.2B Refugee Services Program that Funds Pro-Asylum Religious Groups." It has a strong implicit slant, focusing heavily on the how the organizations in question oppose Trump's policies - although the article frames this as opposition to Trump himself.
> I'm very sensitive to slanted reporting (regardless of the direction of the slant!)—and, hey, maybe my bullshit detector is broken or something, I dunno
Yeah, unless you believe white people are being replaced, and you like to march in places like Charlottesville wearing khakis, carrying a torch, and chanting "Jews will not replace us!", you might want to get that bullshit detector checked out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
HF was openai, not anthropic. The thing where they enders gamed the ai was anthropic
It doesn't really matter it's all the same thing for the point of the discussion. All investigations into these 'hacks' are focusing too much on the model and not enough on what the humans did wrong. The model doesn't have real agency it can't be put in prison so what it 'thinks' is irrelevant. We need to be focusing on what the humans did in these situations and assigning guilt based on those findings. I don't fix t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s been a lot of time and effort and money put in to siloing away independent forums so that you don’t use them. Someone go ahead and explain to me the actual rationale that RDDT has a higher P/E ratio than Nvidia. It’s not because of some dumb “ai training deal”. It’s because until they run it into the ground, it is the place to find what used to exist in forums.
> Someone go ahead and explain to me the actual rationale that RDDT has a higher P/E ratio than Nvidia. Investors in RDDT are pricing more growth than they are into NVDA. NVDA had a high P/E until their net income grew ($4B and change to $72.2B in from FY 2023 to FY 2025 and over $100B for FY 2026)
Pretending that any of this is some traditional idea of investor sentiment is such a last decade way line of argument. Please don’t insult us both pretending real people and their motivations are what drive the markets.