381–390 of 518 posts
>custom harness Means you pay full price per token right? (Which I think works out to roughly 10x more than using Claude Code?) Actually, for enterprise I think it doesn't make a difference anymore, since they switched to per-token billing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you think 5 years into the invention of electricity the world already was vastly different? The internet? Would you have written them off because random people didn't know much about them at that point - which isnt even true as chatgpt has been ~ the 5th most popular site in the world for a couple of years now?
I mean, besides the fact that electricity and the internet are orders of magnitude more transformative than a statistical next-token prediction machine, none of the predictions behind LLMs were made of either in the first 5 years. Gangnam Style is the most popular video ever, surely it means something right?! If we're cooked, it's only because of a mass hysteria behind this thing. It's an extremely useful technology,…
This is going to be studied for many, many generations to come.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I can control government more than I can control Google or Anthropic How true is this really? With the government, you can vote in various elections, or contact your representatives, and when it comes to important issues that will do exactly squat. You can also buy politicians or legislation, or run yourself, if you have the wealth and connections to do so. With corporations, you can vote with your dollars, which a…
The illusion of control is stronger with modern democratic governments-but while it’s true that if we all voted for Vermin Supreme, he’d rule, it’s also true if we all stopped using Google they’d die quickly. But neither is a realistic outcome. And neither do you personally have anything remotely near “control”. The reason everyone argues about this stuff online is that’s literally the only power we have. However, th…
So are big corporations.
Only one gives users any kind of democratic influence over policy.
And voting does make a difference. Ask New York.
Everyone's focusing on marketing and market manipulation here, but the real consequences are more serious IMO. If a volatile administration can ban you from running code that you wrote -- without any democratic processes like a law or lawsuit -- why would you build anything in the US?
That's not what's going on. But, what's going on has always been possible. Even to this day, there's software that's is subject to export controls. There's also an often-changing list of countries that US-based companies are prohibited from doing any business with. For software, this has been going on since the 1990s. "Weirdly", the US-based software business has been doing really well.
Anthropic was instructed to prevent Foreign Nationals from using a subset of their software. Anthropic chose to prevent everyone from using that subset of their software.
Anthropic had other options. One of those options was to gate access to the software behind the ID, biometrics, and -if present- passport capture that Big Tech seems to be very excited to do. I expect that -if they end up changing anything at all about access control- we'll see them doing something very similar to that in the coming weeks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This extreme makes the question meaningless. A government isn't a government if it can't regulate and has no authority. Its fundamentally different to say governments or individuals should have no power or freedom. By design, governments have the winning end of a power imbalance and limiting them helps protect those on the losing end. Limiting those already on the losing end makes it worse for almost everyone (assumi…
There’s a certain argument that people are just in over their heads for a society as large and complex as our and we just can’t cut it. Nothing that won’t be fixed by overshoot.
I repeat - don't worry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think everyone does see that there is good government and bad government. They just disagree about which one is the good one and which is the bad one. The real problem is when people demand heavy government involvement but don’t think about what could go wrong if an administration decided to misuse the regulation. They just assume it’s going to be used perfectly as they imagined it, usually to punish the companies…
> I think everyone does see that there is good government and bad government. I only know the time and place I've lived in (United States, born in 1977), but I feel like the trope of "all government is bad" has been the rallying cry of conservatives since the Reagan era. I'm convinced enough people have grown up hearing that trope that your assumption is incorrect. I think a ton of people believe there can only be ba…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This extreme makes the question meaningless. A government isn't a government if it can't regulate and has no authority. Its fundamentally different to say governments or individuals should have no power or freedom. By design, governments have the winning end of a power imbalance and limiting them helps protect those on the losing end. Limiting those already on the losing end makes it worse for almost everyone (assumi…
There’s a certain argument that people are just in over their heads for a society as large and complex as our and we just can’t cut it. Nothing that won’t be fixed by overshoot.
> I actually have another draft post in the barrel about how I think we should see a resurgence of the ‘flash game’ renaissance because it has become so much easier to make fun little games with AI tooling. I have been lurking on the aigamedev subreddit to see exactly what sort of games people are coming up with and I can say I have been incredibly disappointing. I've been faithfully trying the games people post and…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're truly lost when we can't see that there is such a thing as good government and bad government. That there is a difference between corruption and modern liberal regulation that follows fair rules. That we can't see that it's ok to regulate CFCs to prevent ozone catastrophe, and not ok to use back room deals to pick favorites. It's not about sides or teams, but there is still right and wrong even in the administr…
I think everyone does see that there is good government and bad government. They just disagree about which one is the good one and which is the bad one. The real problem is when people demand heavy government involvement but don’t think about what could go wrong if an administration decided to misuse the regulation. They just assume it’s going to be used perfectly as they imagined it, usually to punish the companies…
As long as I have paid attention to American politics, it’s always had a major undercurrent of “all government bad”, with a subtext of “this thing I know about is an exception”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like it could be a law that there is essentially no way to guarantee that AI is any more or less safe than humans. It kinda seems incompatible with what we understand to be "intelligence" which arguably requires a certain unpredictable freedom...Has a method of "baking in" such safety features even been conceptualized? Or is it just a matter of nurturing/raising/policing them after the fact and hoping for the…
>Kind of taking this a step further, what is the worst thing that an AI run amok could do to existentially threaten the human race? Probably convincing humans that untrue things are true. Think less "AI launches nukes" and more "AI convinces people in country A that country B is trying to subvert & destroy them, while it does the same for country B wrt A."