681–690 of 702 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sam is a player and honestly the more interesting one in the whole thing. Mad respect to Sam, now I believe OpenAI have better chance to win in the race
absolute truth nuke and the hysteria around it is yet more evidence that HN is a negative signal. anything HN countersignals, go long on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand how any sort of deal is defensible in the circumstances. Government: "Anthropic, let us do whatever we want" Anthropic: "We have some minimal conditions." Government: "OpenAI, if we blast Anthropic into the sun, what sort of deal can we get?" OpenAI: "Uh well I guess I should ask for those conditions" Government: blasts Anthropic into the sun "Sure whatever, those conditions are okay...for now." By…
From a level headed outside perspective It looks like Anthropic likely wanted to be able to verify the terms on their own volition whereas OpenAI was fine with letting the government police themselves. From the DoD perspective they don't want a situation, like, a target is being tracked, and then the screen goes black because the Anthropic committee decided this is out of bounds.
Anthropic didn't want a kill switch, they wanted contractual guarantees (the kind you can go to courts for). This administration just doesn't want accountability, that's all.
It was OpenAI that said they prefer to rely on guardrails and less on contracts (the kind that stops the AI from working if you violate). The same OpenAI that was awarded the contract now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anonymous sources are bad again. Glad we could clear that up.
That's a copout and you know it. You're focusing on the 'unnamed' part; I'm focusing on the 'representative of an administration that lies constantly and brazenly' part.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a copout and you know it. You're focusing on the 'unnamed' part; I'm focusing on the 'representative of an administration that lies constantly and brazenly' part.
Noted Rationalist responds to a question about a first strike scenario with "I need to think about it" instead of "of course we'd launch the missiles, are you kidding?" and everyone here seems to think this is somehow unbelievable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm an OpenAI employee and I'll go out on a limb with a public comment. I agree AI shouldn't be used for mass surveillance or autonomous weapons. I also think Anthropic has been treated terribly and has acted admirably. My understanding is that the OpenAI deal disallows domestic mass surveillance and autonomous weapons, and that OpenAI is asking for the same terms for other AI companies (so that we can continue compe…
Respectfully, it's very hard to see how anyone could look at what just happened and come to the conclusion that one company ends up classed a "supply chain risk" while another agrees the the same terms that led to that. Either the terms are looser, they're not going to be enforced, or there's another reason for the loud attempt to blacklist Anthropic. It's very difficult to see how you could take this at face value i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You tell me why an employee would believe something convenient to them continuing to receive their paycheck
Life is more than a paycheck. We should raise the bar a little IMO. Turning down money for good reasons is not something extreme we should only expect from saints.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not claiming all religious people everywhere are some moral majority? Simply that people die for there beliefs and don't sellout. It happens in religion, politics etc. Also it's some super faulty logic to say look those prominent religious people support trump so all religous people support him is stupid. If that were the case Trump would win every election by massive margins. Trump might win 60/40 in rural areas the…
80% of Evangelical Christians voted for Trump.
1) I don't think you have read nor understood my argument. Stating that 80% of Evangelical Christians voted for Trump is not the the ding you think it is. Your imply 1/5 of Evangelicals don't sellout? I think that estimate is way too high and even if it was 99.99% of Evangelic Christians that doesn't excuse their selling hence my original statement. Say everyone sellsout so its okay to sell out is excusing in my opinion is abhorent behavior and suppport of an extremely dangerous leader. But this leads to point 2.
2) I am assuming your a democrat, congrats me to. I am also religiou, and I am assuming your not religous. But you don't see to undertand much about different religous groups and I think this sharp narrow view thinking really harms the democrats ability to reach out to religous people which is around 70-75% of american's according to pew research.
If you want to understand Evangelicals are basically defined by following some charismatic leader who either speaks for Christ, or has visions, or just claims to have all the answers. Believers will follow in any direction because they trust that person but when trust is lost they usually face a crisis of faith and leave that church or the faith all together because they didn't really have strong buy in to the ideals of chirst just that person. This is an extremely well documented occurence. While not all Evangelical people are that occurence a large number are and that architype perfectly describes Trump supporters and MAGA cultist. I think that explains the extreme overlap.
But also religion is a much more complex subject than 1 statistic, as being MAGA is not on the set of beliefs required to be Christian, In fact being a good person isn't either. I think it would be worth while to read up on up and coming people like James Talarico, who understand well that infusing the 2 philosophies is motivating. Because remember religion while being used to do horrible things was also used to immensely liberal things. Universal voting is a protestant thing, anti slavery is largerly a religous movement against white supremacy. The civil rights movement is baked in religion.
Understanding religion as equal to Trump support is corrosive the game of politics and pandering the playroom of vanity. As it doesn't help change anything and is just social meeting points to talk that way. I don't care for vanity I care about wining political power and using it run the country well and help people. I care about uplifting people economically, so they have the freedom to explore whatever faith, athiestism, or whatever they want because that liberality I believe is inherent into the decency of the human condition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
80% of Evangelical Christians voted for Trump.
2 things 1) I don't think you have read nor understood my argument. Stating that 80% of Evangelical Christians voted for Trump is not the the ding you think it is. Your imply 1/5 of Evangelicals don't sellout? I think that estimate is way too high and even if it was 99.99% of Evangelic Christians that doesn't excuse their selling hence my original statement. Say everyone sellsout so its okay to sell out is excusing i…
I understand the difference between socially liberal Christian churches like the ones that were key to the civil rights movement and today are fightijg ICE.
My own wife is what I consider a very liberal Christian. She is a tither and she also is a dance fitness instructor and almost every male fitness I instructor in her organization is gay and she considers them friends and she is as far away from MAGA as possible. (I was a fitness instructor part time for over a decade myself in my younger years and I am well aware that all male instructors aren’t gay).
But the Black led mega churches also aren’t speaking up strongly about all of the things that clearly go up against the “RFC of Christianity” - adultery, bearing false witness, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> theyre food delivery robots, thats not a gun that a drink dispenser!" You underestimate how many top AI scientists are perfectly okay with building autonomous weapons systems and are not ashamed of it. Me, and 99% of HN readers, will gladly pull the trigger to release a missile from a drone if we are paid even just US$1,000,000/year. Now note that many L7+ at OpenAI are making $10 million+ per year.
> Me, and 99% of HN readers, will gladly pull the trigger to release a missile from a drone if we are paid even just US$1,000,000/year. I sincerely doubt that's true. I hope it's not. $1m is a lot of money, but I find it hard to believe most people would be willing to indiscriminately kill a large number of people for it.