71–80 of 121 posts
Missed opportunity to call this a "Phil-Anthropic" partnership. The word doesn't appear once in TFA. Highly disappointed. Seeing some of the comments here speculating about ulterior motives, I'd like to say there are probably none other than the usual (goodwill, publicity, taxes, etc.) A little known aspect of the Gates Foundation finances, their problem really isn't getting more money. Their biggest problem is spend…
Bill-Anthropic ;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They were a little late, but did have the dominant browser for most of the 2000's. To say they "missed the boat" is a bit much. There was a dark period from 1999 to 2004 or so where IE was basically the only usable browser.
> but did have the dominant browser for most of the 2000's. By offering it for "free" as part of the OS. Which they could only do because they never intended to pay the developers who wrote it. In a classic Microsoft move they fucked over their competition, their partners and the entire ecosystem for well over a decade.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a leftist, I’ve never once considered Bill Gates or Anthropic to be even remotely left-wing. I’m not sure how it would be possible to frame them like that.
The polarizing vaccine mandate is one such example of alignment.
Is anyone keeping track of all these “partnerships” and “investments” in one place? This is all turning into a ton of what looks like PR fodder that appears to go nowhere.
Ed Zitron[1] has a lot of articles and podcast episodes on these deals. The nice thing about it is that he occasionally revisits the old announcements to check what happened with them. Apparently a lot of these deals just evaporate after prolonged contact with reality. [1] https://www.wheresyoured.at/
Is anyone keeping track of all these “partnerships” and “investments” in one place? This is all turning into a ton of what looks like PR fodder that appears to go nowhere.
The worst were the ones where long after all the cocktails were drunk, some executive (too stupid to understand the vapid nature of these partnerships) got it into his mind to "check up on the progress of the cooperation". That mess predictably rolled downhill because nobody was willing to tell them the truth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bill-Anthropic ;)
[flagged]
While he's a shit person for that (taking advantage of sexual trafficking victims is despicable), I'm not sure I'd be comfortable to use that term - but maybe I'm just not informed enough?
Missed opportunity to call this a "Phil-Anthropic" partnership. The word doesn't appear once in TFA. Highly disappointed. Seeing some of the comments here speculating about ulterior motives, I'd like to say there are probably none other than the usual (goodwill, publicity, taxes, etc.) A little known aspect of the Gates Foundation finances, their problem really isn't getting more money. Their biggest problem is spend…
Yep this is an interesting thing that most of us don't tend to think about when it comes to philanthropy (or even gov spending) ... it's really really hard to _spend_ money effectively.
Because there's all the work around accountability, checking for fraudulent applications, checking if your money made an impact, deciding where to even focus, all those things.
The "Melinda" bit already dropped? Why did she leave him? Great guy to do a partnership with the same-named foundations of. I'll take the downvotes (just saw that _all_ posts that comment negatively on the foundation are well downvoted: I gave each of 'm an upvote just to counter all the AI bots on here, cause sure there are).
As for the value of Bill Gates as a husband or of his foundation, the positives don't outweigh the negatives. I have no problem saying with certainty that this is a bad move on Anthropic's part, because anything that Gates Foundation does could be done under an untarnished name.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ed Zitron[1] has a lot of articles and podcast episodes on these deals. The nice thing about it is that he occasionally revisits the old announcements to check what happened with them. Apparently a lot of these deals just evaporate after prolonged contact with reality. [1] https://www.wheresyoured.at/
Ed Zitron is a terrible source, he is so staunchly anti AI that he is effectively blind. Once in a while he'll be right by pure chance, but I wouldn't rely on any of it.
I think he misses the mark when he insists on AI being useless. It is useful, although far from what the people hyping AI claim.
But when he delves in the numbers, his arguments are very solid (and I am still to see someone counter him on that).