961–970 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes I am sure of the second part based on the government’s own publicly available tweets and lawsuits that have been filed.
Literally PR.
Am I the only one that feels like Claude is clearly winning code generation, and Gemini in general LLM? I just don’t feel like OpenAI has a legitimate shot at winning any of the AI battles. Therefore, I feel like “Sam Altman may control our future” is a far stretch.
P.S. Really enjoyed Catch and Kill.
Ask Condé Nast if he can be trusted.. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/s/VWJVBNzc2u
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eventually something like what happened with the DOW might happen again (hope not) and the IPO will leave them beholden to shareholders. If the leadership doesn’t bend it might get replaced. It’s annoying. I think Claude is atm the best AI assistant, by far.
Anthropic is a public benefit corporation. This protects them from legal pressure from shareholders. Doesn't really help with market pressure/value drift though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find it bizarre even the public image of Anthropic is seen as ethical after the Department of War debacle, in which they themselves admitted they had basically no qualms with their tech being used for war and slaughter at all except two very very thin lines, namely mass surveillance of American citizens and fully automated weaponry with their current models. It only showed they were marginally more ethical than Ope…
Anthropic has two principles they're willing to stand behind, even when it costs them. That's not a lot, but OpenAI only has one principle: look out for number one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
After the US launched its attack on Iran, the ethical AI lab's CEO wrote: "Anthropic has much more in common with the Department of War than we have differences." - https://www.anthropic.com/news/where-stand-department-war
"how easy it is, for those of us who play no part in public affairs, to sneer at the compromises required of those who do" - robert harris Not making any value judgements, but I can see how one might value their interpretability research higher than what the ceo says in a time where the corrupt, criminal executive branch is muscling in to everything from what's written on currency, to journalistic sources. I generall…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a ton of evidence out there that points to guilt. No one implied the appearance of innocence was evidence of guilt (as much as I admire the creativity in your interpretation, Mr. Self-Described Altman Apologist).
Making a selective quote the way you did with the response you provided made my interpretation reasonable. What other point could you have been making? You made no reference to any other evidence. >as much as I admire the creativity in your interpretation, Mr. Self-Described Altman Apologist). I am unsure if this is deliberate irony, or poor comprehension.
It may be more of a mental block than anything else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry I didn't mean that the artice has proofs he lied, just that some of the situations presented cannot be simple misunderstandings. The pieces in the article I was referring to are: > Amodei’s notes describe escalating tense encounters, including one, months later, in which Altman summoned him and his sister, Daniela, who worked in safety and policy at the company, to tell them that he had it on “good authority” f…
That's interesting, I'm sure when I read the article it didn't specifically attribute those claims to Amodei. To be frank, While I tend to think that Dario has good intentions, I'm not so sure about his judgement. He's made a lot of claims that haven't panned out. I haven't felt that it was due to dishonesty, but more because of hyperbole. The phrasing "Altman then denied having made the claim. “I didn’t even say tha…
Apologies, I didn't mean to highlight Amodei in those quotes, I just selected the sentence to have enough context but not be too long, it was a coincidence that they both started with Amodei. I'm not sure if those claims came from Amodei or not, nor I have any specific feeling about him.
> Furthermore this was prefaced with "As one person briefed on the exchange recalled" so it isn't even a first hand account
I'll admit I somehow missed that part, but we don't know how much of this event was in "Amodei's notes" and how much was from the "person briefed on the exchange"
> The phrasing "..." is very close to the pattern I described above where someone interprets a claim as something different
> The second claim is potentially even more of a match for the example I gave regarding people misreading legal documentation
I think our difference in point of view here lies on how much trust we put in the author, with what I seen so far I feel I have enough trust in the author to think he investigated these claims properly and made sure they weren't just misunderstandings, and that many of those checks he did weren't included in the article for any technical/legal reasons. Much more so reading some of his comments:
> As is always the case with incredibly precise and rigorously fact-checked reporting like this, where every word is chosen carefully (the initial closing meeting for this one was nearly eight hours long, with full deliberation about each sentence), there is more out there on that subject than is explicitly on the page.
> You try to reach a critical mass of detailed, rounded understanding of a central question, integrating the most meaningful perspectives, interrogating the weak points and blind spots, and backing up the assertions with documentary evidence or strong sourcing. Eventually, you reach a point where enough sources and materials are reliably triangulating toward the same truths.
> The fact-checking process at the New Yorker is exhaustive, and can span weeks. Every sentence, assertion, and piece of underlying sourcing get scrubbed by multiple independent pairs of eyes. This story had four fact-checkers working on it for the better part of a two week period, pulling very long hours.
As I said I'm happy to agree to disagree on this point.
> So many of the claims seem to fall into the pattern that requires the person reporting the claim to judge the sole meaning of what was said
I guess that's the nature of communications between humans. Even examples of written discussions seem contentious. The only type of claims I can think about that could be outside this category are the ones about written contracts, but it's understandable we don't have access to the actual contracts, and even if we did we couldn't really prove what was verbally agreed to be put in the contracts.
> To say that's where he sits is to buy into the premise that whoever is the head of OpenAI controls our future. OpenAI is but one of many enterprises working on this
This might start a whole new discussion, but I think being the CEO of one of the companies that produce state of the are models is enough to have a high concern. My worry is that he(or any other company) won't say "stop" if a new AI is found to be more powerful but have considerable negative impacts on society. As an example it doesn't matter who has the "strongest" atomic bomb, any country that has one is a potential treat to humanity and should have rigid controls in place.
I commented specifically on Altman because the article seems to suggest he's more power-greedy, persuasive, possibly deceptive, and with strong-leverages/contacts than the average person, or even the average CEO.
(edits: formatting)