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

Anthropic: "Applicants should not use AI assistants"

simonwillison.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 419 posts

Re: Anthropic: "Applicants should not use AI assistants"

#341

Post by spinningslate »

imchillyb wrote: post #299
numbsafari wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are the same people that insist we arm elementary school teachers and expect those teachers to someday pull the trigger on a child instead of having proper gun laws. There is no irony.

When have gun laws ever stopped a shooting? When have criminals EVER followed law, code, rules, or even a suggestion from their fellow citizens? Believing laws deter criminals is almost criminally insane and beggars all logic. After all of the accumulated evidence against your belief, you still believe laws deter criminality. The death penalty doesn’t deter criminals. How could words possibly have an effect?

The US firearm mortality rate was 5x that of the nearest high-income countries in 2019 [0]. The US had 120 firearms per 100 people in 2018 with 80% of all homicides being gun-related [1].

Those statistics may not be wholly attributable to differences in gun laws but it seems a stretch to suggest they're unrelated.

[0] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/us-midst-public-health-crisis...

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41488081

Re: Anthropic: "Applicants should not use AI assistants"

#342

Post by plagiarist »

imchillyb wrote: post #295
blagie wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Everyone has a gun on their person with no licensing requirements. Yet at the NRA conference they ban guns. That's not what the NRA is pushing for, any more than there are Democrats pushing for mandatory sex changes for all kids (yes, this is cited on similar right-wing comedy shows, and individuals on the right believe it). Pushing for a right doesn't mean 100% of the population will exercise that right. And yes,…

There are LEOs that were prosecuted by states and the federal government for not taking action while children were being shot by another child. LEOs are expected to take fire to protect civilians. Protect & Serve is their credo. I wouldn’t trust LEOs to protect me, so I sure as hell fire am not trusting a low paid rent-a-cop to perform a similar duty. Nope. I believe that my mindset is prevalent and not an outlier.

I would trust a security guard more. They have consequences for misconduct or failure to do their job. (Assuming they aren't an on-duty LEO who is "overemployed.")

Not enough that I think they'd protect me in a situation that requires a gun. Just more than a cop.

Re: Anthropic: "Applicants should not use AI assistants"

#343

Post by ethbr1 »

blagie wrote: post #260
wepple wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huge miss on the gun analogy. The likes of NRA are pushing for 50-state constitutional carry. Everyone has a gun on their person with no licensing requirements. Yet at the NRA conference they ban guns. There’s probably actually some other hidden factor though, like the venue not allowing it. Edit: FWIW those late night TV shows are nothing but rage bait low brow “comedy” that divides the country. But the above remain…

> Everyone has a gun on their person with no licensing requirements. Yet at the NRA conference they ban guns. That's not what the NRA is pushing for, any more than there are Democrats pushing for mandatory sex changes for all kids (yes, this is cited on similar right-wing comedy shows, and individuals on the right believe it). Pushing for a right doesn't mean 100% of the population will exercise that right. And yes,…

The NRA is absolutely in favor of constitutional carry [0] and permitless carry [1].

[0] https://www.shootingillustrated.com/content/constitutional-c...

[1] https://www.nraila.org/articles/20210413/texas-permitless-ca...

Re: Anthropic: "Applicants should not use AI assistants"

#344

Post by blagie »

knuppar wrote: post #304
blagie wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Everyone has a gun on their person with no licensing requirements. Yet at the NRA conference they ban guns. That's not what the NRA is pushing for, any more than there are Democrats pushing for mandatory sex changes for all kids (yes, this is cited on similar right-wing comedy shows, and individuals on the right believe it). Pushing for a right doesn't mean 100% of the population will exercise that right. And yes,…

>And yes, most venues (as well as schools, government buildings, etc.) will not allow guns. If there's a security guard, police, or similar within spitting distance, there isn't a reasonable self-defence argument. Can you give me one example of a valid "reasonable self-defence argument"? Legit question.

The extreme scenario:

I live in a home surrounded by miles of fields. There is no one within miles to hear me scream. Without a gun, anyone could come by my home, kill me, rob my home, and be gone before the police would even show up, if I even had a chance to call them. If I didn't call the police, they could literally move in and stay for months before anyone would notice.

The reason this does not happen is because everyone has a gun. Everyone knows I have a gun. If I see you coming on my property, I WILL shoot you. You don't know if the first shot will be a warning shot, birdshot, buckshot, or a 5.56×45mm NATO. You might get lucky and I might not spot you. Or you might be crippled for life. Without guns, crime is free. With guns, crime doesn't pay.

That's a scenario surprisingly common in rural America, parts of Appalachia, and other very low population density areas.

Now, I actually live in a dense city. There's a police station a few hundred yards away from virtually anywhere I might go. There are security cameras everywhere, thanks to Ring, Wyze, and friends. The city has a ShotSpotter system.

Crime rates are low, and more guns don't make me (personally) safer. Most of my neighbours want to ban them. However, I can understand there's a bias there.

As a footnote: If it were possible to hold clear conversation, I think there are solutions which work for everyone. However, people talk across each other.

Re: Anthropic: "Applicants should not use AI assistants"

#345

Post by plagiarist »

imchillyb wrote: post #299
numbsafari wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are the same people that insist we arm elementary school teachers and expect those teachers to someday pull the trigger on a child instead of having proper gun laws. There is no irony.

When have gun laws ever stopped a shooting? When have criminals EVER followed law, code, rules, or even a suggestion from their fellow citizens? Believing laws deter criminals is almost criminally insane and beggars all logic. After all of the accumulated evidence against your belief, you still believe laws deter criminality. The death penalty doesn’t deter criminals. How could words possibly have an effect?

You're really going with a position like, "criminals will disobey laws therefore it is pointless to have laws," huh?

Re: Anthropic: "Applicants should not use AI assistants"

#346

Post by xnorswap »

cedws wrote: post #340
xnorswap wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm with you, I'm very surprised by the amount arguments which boil down to, "Well I can cheat and get away with it, so therefore I should cheat". I have read that people are getting more selfish[1], but it still shocks me how much people are willing to push individualism and selfishness under the guise of either, "Well it's not illegal" or "Well, it's not detectable". I think I'm just very much out of tune with the…

>I'm with you, I'm very surprised by the amount arguments which boil down to, "Well I can cheat and get away with it, so therefore I should cheat". Have you seen the job market? Companies will treat you like garbage through the interview process, make you jump through pointless hoops, and then even if you get the job you can be laid off at any moment because of arbitrary reasons the CEO made up to get their bonus. Wh…

> Why should anyone be honest when it goes entirely unappreciated and unrewarded?

This is a good example of the attitude that I'm describing.

Your question is close to an unthinkable culture shock to me.

In my values and ethics, honesty isn't transactional. It's not something you practice because you expect the same back. It's not something that you regulate and only provide to others that meet some moral bar that you set.

Honesty is just something you do because it's ethically right to do so.

( Nor by the way, is it motivated out of some fear of omnipotent reprisal. )

Re: Anthropic: "Applicants should not use AI assistants"

#347

Post by plagiarist »

cedws wrote: post #340
xnorswap wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm with you, I'm very surprised by the amount arguments which boil down to, "Well I can cheat and get away with it, so therefore I should cheat". I have read that people are getting more selfish[1], but it still shocks me how much people are willing to push individualism and selfishness under the guise of either, "Well it's not illegal" or "Well, it's not detectable". I think I'm just very much out of tune with the…

>I'm with you, I'm very surprised by the amount arguments which boil down to, "Well I can cheat and get away with it, so therefore I should cheat". Have you seen the job market? Companies will treat you like garbage through the interview process, make you jump through pointless hoops, and then even if you get the job you can be laid off at any moment because of arbitrary reasons the CEO made up to get their bonus. Wh…

They sortof have a just world fallacy going on, a trap I often fall into. I wish it was.

I think you're more accurate here, fuck them. The reality is I'm fortunate to be an office drone instead of treated as utterly disposable in a gig economy. And if someday AI gets good enough to replace me, I will be replaced.

Re: Anthropic: "Applicants should not use AI assistants"

#348

Post by toolz »

LeapingLennie wrote: post #337
toolz wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think proper gun laws would keep guns away from evil people in the US, please explain to me why the war against illegal drugs in the US has been losing since the day it started. Sure, some places in the world can successfully limit gun access. Those places aren't close and even bordered by the most active cartels in the world. Just as a fun thought exercise, consider that to grow the plant necessary to produce…

Regarding the drugs vs guns comparison, I bet you'd find that every country that has implemented reasonably effective gun control still has thriving illicit drug markets. Australia is just as zealous at persecuting the drug war as the US but continues to fail at that whereas gun crime is very low.

Australians, for example, don't want guns relative to Americans. It's not hard to ban things people don't want. Prior to 1996 gun laws in Australia, home ownership was like 15%. In the US it's been as high as 45% in recent years. As far as the number of guns owned, we have more guns than people. So yeah, taking a country with 1/3rd the ownership down 75% with regulation that isn't bordered by cartels isn't that shocking to me.

You would never achieve that in the US and that's incredibly obvious to me by looking at the gun crime stats in places that do already have gun control laws in the US.

Re: Anthropic: "Applicants should not use AI assistants"

#349

Post by toolz »

shigawire wrote: post #329
toolz wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think proper gun laws would keep guns away from evil people in the US, please explain to me why the war against illegal drugs in the US has been losing since the day it started. Sure, some places in the world can successfully limit gun access. Those places aren't close and even bordered by the most active cartels in the world. Just as a fun thought exercise, consider that to grow the plant necessary to produce…

Drugs are more addictive than guns typically. I am not sure your comparison is useful.

yet in the US just as many households have reported using drugs as own guns

Re: Anthropic: "Applicants should not use AI assistants"

#350

Post by demosthanos »

passwordoops wrote: post #246
radu_floricica wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, they probably aren't permitted to smoke tobacco indoors. I honestly fail to see even the irony. "Company that makes hammers doesn't want you to use hammers all the time". It's a tool. But if I squint, I _can_ see a mean-spirited "haha, look at those hypocrites" coming from people who enjoy tearing others down for no particular reason.

But it's ok for Anthropic's marketing, sales and development teams to push to use case (AI for writing, communication and career development)? Even when squinting I can't see a genuine argument for why Anthrpoic shouldn't be raked over the coals for their sheer hypocrisy

Do you have an example of the kind of marketing or sales push for communication use cases that you're implying exists? OpenAI totally does have a huge marketing arm, but Anthropic's home page doesn't make it look like they have a very large marketing or sales department at all—it looks like it was designed by the researchers themselves.
Post reply on HN