381–390 of 461 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Nothing deep going on there. Fascism in modern informal parlance is a synonym for authoritarianism. Those who object most loudly to Stalin being called a fascist are usually themselves actually fascists, or stalinists. Everybody else gets it.
There are no ‘good’ companies but I like anthropic little bit more than the others as of this moment right now. Would buy their stock, would sell OpenAI, maaybe. If it was public. Maybe instead of MSFT and AMZN I bought
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By voting.
Voting changes the name of the department. It doesn't change if the government wants mass surveillance. See PRISM.
https://www.wyden.senate.gov/issues/domestic-surveillance-re...
He may not be perfect on everything, but elect more people like him and it starts moving the needle. Or elect some more that are even more opposed to some of these things. It doesn't happen overnight. Change is difficult.
I've long thought that OpenAI was a corrupt bunch.
Except for embedding (which I plan to move soon), I have quit my OpenAI accounts. I don't like them.
When @sama announced within hours that OAI was replacing Anthropic with the "same conditions ", it was clear that either the DoW or OAI (or both) were fudging. DoW balked at Anthropic's conditions so OAI's agreement must have made the "conditions" basically unenforceable. And sure enough, my reading of it left the impression the OAI conditions were basically "DoW won't do anything which violates the rules DoW sets fo…
> OAI conditions were basically "DoW won't do anything which violates the rules DoW sets for itself." I believe this understanding is correct. The issue many people have these days with Dept. of War, and most of Trump admin is that they have little respect for laws. They only follow the ones they like and openly ignore the ones that are inconvenient. Dept of "War" should have zero problems agreeing to the two conditi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem here is that this department claims its adversaries are Americans. Do you think antropic should aid in the killing of Americans?
I don’t believe for a second the Pentagon sees Americans as adversaries.
Evidence (the Commander in Chief calling the opposition terrorists, and celebrating their government executions, for example) indicates that reality indeed reflects the things you personally don't believe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is an interesting perspective. What happens if there is a large global war? Do researchers who were previously against working with the DoD end up flipping out of duty? Does the war budget go up? Does the DoD decide to lift any ban on Anthropic for the sake of getting the best model and does Anthropic warm its stance on not working with autonomous weapons systems? I don’t know the answers to these questions, but…
> 3. We just bombed Iran and killed their supreme leader. Being accurate, by all reporting Israel killed Iran's leadership. Yes, likely enabled by US intelligence, but the one who pulls the trigger does matter.
The one who pulled the trigger is irrelevant here, because both have pulled the trigger hundreds or thousands of times in the past few days, dividing up targets between them for the joint operation.
When @sama announced within hours that OAI was replacing Anthropic with the "same conditions ", it was clear that either the DoW or OAI (or both) were fudging. DoW balked at Anthropic's conditions so OAI's agreement must have made the "conditions" basically unenforceable. And sure enough, my reading of it left the impression the OAI conditions were basically "DoW won't do anything which violates the rules DoW sets fo…
Verification requires access to classified logs. These logs would attract the spies of the whole world. Even if these logs are in principle for "past actions", in practice past logs (for war games, for example) would compromise future strategy.
Since these manual audits are too risky, the only alternative is to hard-code limits into the AI. But are we ready trust an AI to "judge" a mission and refuse to execute during a crisis?
Anthropic wanted technical enforcement, the Pentagon wanted trust.
It’s a choice between two bad options: an unaccountable military and an unreliable AI kill switch. They are both very dangerous, just in different ways.
When @sama announced within hours that OAI was replacing Anthropic with the "same conditions ", it was clear that either the DoW or OAI (or both) were fudging. DoW balked at Anthropic's conditions so OAI's agreement must have made the "conditions" basically unenforceable. And sure enough, my reading of it left the impression the OAI conditions were basically "DoW won't do anything which violates the rules DoW sets fo…
Agree with this completely. But besides Sam Altman, this whole episode has made me totally and completely lose all respect for Paul Graham. I used to really idolize pg, and I really used to like his essays, but over the years I've found his essays increasingly displayed a disturbing lack of introspection, like they'd always seem to say that starting a startup is the best thing anyone can do, and if you're not good at…