301–310 of 716 posts
The largest predictor of behavior within a company and of that companies products in the long run is funding sources and income streams, which is conveniently left out in their "constitution". Mostly a waste of effort on their part.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess you don't know about how taxes work for Americans? Living abroad typically changes nothing, they still owe tax. Maybe an American can chime in here on this...
Correct, the US is one of the few countries that tries to collect (Federal) income tax from all citizens regardless of the country they are currently living in. To be fair, when you can prove that income is entirely foreign (not a single US company in the chain of ownership) that income becomes almost entirely deductible and the tax reporting essentially just a census on how well US citizens are doing from an income…
Living and doing business overseas is as a US citizen is a high risk endeavor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a very fair answer but missing some points. I do personally believe that grok is a less biased against too many PC answers but you may disagree. "All the existing texts on the founding fathers are filled with 250 years of bias, propaganda, and agenda pushing from all sorts of authors." not sure of the point is tho ? Mine is that gemini was biaised so hard that it was generating diverse founding fathers which…
> not sure of the point is tho ? Mine is that gemini was biaised so hard that it was generating diverse founding fathers which is factually untrue. While your first post's criticism of Gemini's nonsense is true, that is a critique often framed as "Everything was neutral until the wokerati put all this woke into our world". Hence the big response. Taking away the hamfisted diversity doesn't fix the underlaying problem…
Secondly trying to go further seem to edge to the entire question of 'is there an actual truth and can LLMs be trained to find them?'.
My opinion is that in many cases there is 'truth', and typically the human consensus, when acting in good faith, is trying to converge into it. When it's not necessarily possibly to have a "truth" (like in history for example where perspective is very important), "consensus" tend to manifest into several thought currents exisiting at the same time. If a LLM is able to summarize them, this is already coolgreat.
In some domains like math however there IS truth and LLM have shown great proficiency to reach it. However it is an open question to 1/ what is the nature of it 2/ do humans have a innate sense of the concept beyond statistical approximation or strong correlations and 3/ and machine can reach it too.
I had a very long conversation with ChatGPT on this that seemed to get very deep into philosophical concepts i was clearly not familiar with but my understanding was there IS a non zero possibility that it is possible to train a model to actually seek truth and that this ability should not be contained to humans only.
I won't have additional arguments to convince you of the above, but at the end i still at the moment prefer the Grok approach (if it is truly what they do at X) to 'seek truth' than someone giving the fight saying "eh everything biased so let's go full relativism instead to not offend people or look too whateverculture-centered"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All governments do this
So you’re saying all governments are fascist? Because when I posted is the accepted understanding of the economic arm of fascism.
Maybe, you need to incorporate some notion of degree or context into the classification, instead of treating it like a boolean.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your question was “Was there actually a case of a model saying "America's founding father were black women" Whether someone else is injecting different bias is whataboutism. So it seems you are trying to make a different point, but not being clear about it. And your “I think the HN crowd understands…” point is just a “no true Scotsman” fallacy to veil an argument that goes against guidelines. Related to the broader t…
It's not whataboutism, it's suggesting the premise is theatrics and there's ulterior shitty-person motives behind the curtain. But sure, let's go back to just the first half of my argument... still waiting for a real citation of this actually being a problem rather than people just stating it is because that's what their feelings say because their fav podcaster said so one day in a misleading gotcha hitpiece, which i…
https://www.euronews.com/next/2024/02/28/googles-ceo-admits-...
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/feb/28/google-ch...
https://www.wired.com/story/google-gemini-woke-ai-image-gene...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You misunderstand - a government normally represents the people, we appoint them to well, govern, in our name. I understand how this is confusing in a place like the US, where the government often seems to represent the business (or lately a small group of poor examples of humanity), not the people.
This is condescending and fails to clarify your point at all. Are you saying there is no oversight or regulation in governance? Or that there is no oversight on AI? That a government pressuring a private company to change a policy is not regulation or oversight?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the US military we’re talking about so 95% of what they do is attacking people for oil. They don’t “need” more of anything, they’re funded to the tune of a trillion dollars a year, almost as much as every other military in the world combined. What holy mission do you think they’re going to carry out with the assistance of LLMs?
That's a total non sequitur. If you think the military is being tasked with the wrong missions, or too many missions, then take that up with the civilian political leadership. But it's not a valid reason to deny the warfighters the best possible weapons systems. Personally I favor a less interventionist foreign policy. But that change can only come about through the political process, not by unaccountable corporate e…
What, to you, is the political process? Why is wielding your economic leverage to incite change illegitimate to you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are claiming all americans must happily create weapons. Thats a silly statement to most americans and humans
Don't presume to put words in my mouth. I flagged your comment for lying about my claims. Individual Americans aren't slaves. They can do as they please and are under no obligation to help build weapons for warfighters. But I think it's ridiculous and offensive for a US corporation to presume to take on a role as moral arbiters by placing arbitrary limits on US government use of certain products. There are larger iss…
A corporation is just a group of people. Anthropic isn't even public, and therefore it's directors aren't subject to any sort of fiduciary duty enshrined in law. They can collectively act as they wish.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is plenty of precedent that companies are expected to regulate themselves. If you are in the US and perform an engineering role without a license or without working under someone with a license, it’s because of an “industrial exemption.” The premise is that companies have enough standards and processes in place to mitigate that risk. However, there is also plenty of evidence that this setup may no longer work.…
The entire system you just described is government regulation. > without a license A government issued license. > it’s because of an “industrial exemption.” A government allowed exemption. Etc. Agree with your second paragraph.
“When the people who make the rules say there are no rules, that means they’re making rules” is an oddly circular take for most people.