Anthropic tells staff to work from home due to possible security team strike
businessinsider.com
businessinsider.com
RTO is an expression of that. Best workers can do is vote with their employment.
Half of the employees deported and a few shot dead just for good measures should be enough to bring Dario to the negotiations table.
We’re invading spreadsheets now. Anything is possible.
It gave me a long, detailed explanation which boiled down to, "Maybe Anthropic will be worth the 1T market cap if xyz happen, but unless something fundamentally changes w/ OpenAI, they are NOT worth anywhere near 1T"
Here's a quote from ChatGPT:
"And if I had $1 million that had to be invested today in either OpenAI at $852B or Anthropic at $965B, with a 5–7 year lockup: I'd put the entire $1 million into Anthropic. Not 60/40. 100/0 Anthropic."
Is it? In Portuguese it's thousand, million, billion, trillion... (Milhar, milhão, bilhão, trilhão, ...)
The Wikipedia article has a nice map what countries use which convention (search for "Current Usage"):
Specifically:
> [...] giga- is always 10^9, which is 'billion' in short scale but 'milliard' in long scale.
"The union representing those workers said that was news to them."
you can trust them with AI code, you can trust them with a full-on rifle
Did Anthropic get "warned" about this strike by its own AI models?
"based upon the intercepted emails and language used in discussions with the union, we predict with 63% accuracy that they will strike within ~3 months"
- You're absolutely right!
Support SEIU organizing them (their fighting the good fight in this case), but this specific article is clickbait.
Allied United is one of the larger security augmentation firms in the nation, which makes is harder. For example, my Alma mater was secured by Allied Universal as well as a dedicated PD because the dedicated PD didn't want to be bag check for a library when they have been dealing with real crime (eg. A comrade in their sister PD across town's was shot by the Boston marathon bombers).
Except they can. Anthropic could just hire their own security for when the other guys go on strike.
Anthropic is anyhow leaving this specific building.
It wasn't anything to do with whether we could have gotten our own (e.g.) security.
A large conglomerate isn’t interested in pissing off a client because their subcontractor has a middle-manager playing fuck-fuck games with a union. That’s exactly the sort of business situation that executive communication can fix.
Like HOW HARD is this to get for everyone on here?!? When you take out a temporary sublease, what the management company's vendors do completely outside your negotiating scope.
All this is showing is further proof that almost no one on HN is from the Bay anymore.
But, historically, strongmen/chieftains have not had incredible trouble keeping their goons under control. Most threats from from palace coups not popular revolt. Most normal people in uncertain times like order and aren't going to flip the table on a system that gives them stability, food and shelter.
Sure. But some of them seize power from others on their way up via force.
Yup, but those aren't the same people as the one who get to become tech billionaires.
Ha! Look as these useless non-acting larpers!
Awful, but not without historical precedent.
Grunts under coercion has a rich history that's still ongoing, but these sort of guards are those that would have both weapons and the guarded in their direct vicinity. I can't think of any historic example where this wasn't the loyalest of the loyal types.
Grunts are regularly mistreated and coerced. You can kidnap people off the streets, throw them in a trench and make sure they don't run away by the presence of "motivational troops" in the rear (who kill their own side for fleeing) but you don't let those sort of troops anywhere remotely near the people responsible for their predicament for very obvious reasons, let alone when armed.
These billionaires who have always relied on the power of the state for their security and asserting their property are absolutely delusional if they think they can keep it without it.
When states collapse, the one who emerge victorious aren't the well-mannered business people, it's the warlords (a.k.a. the heads of organized crime).
For example, how Mallory can gain power over Alice and Bob who don't directly communicate.
First, Mallory tells Alice: "I am stronger than you. If you don't do what I say I'll kill you." So Alice decides to submit.
Then, Mallory takes Alice to Bob and says to him: "Together with Alice we are stronger than you, and kill you if you don't do what I want." So Bob submits.
This only works if Bob doesn't talk to Alice, otherwise they would together see the empty threat.
With more people, it becomes a bit trickier but hopefully you see how blocking communication helps to gain power over people. Often the blocking of communication is done through propaganda, e.g. Mallory might entice Alice and Bob to hate each other, so they wouldn't get together and figure he's the manipulator. Or Mallory might just kill someone randomly to motivate people not to talk to each other.
Anyway, this shows the importance of free speech (which is really a misnomer; it should be called a right to listen). If you can freely talk (and listen) to other people, you reduce your chances to being subjugated by someone.
(This is also why in a war, people are incentivized to dehumanize the other party and not to listen what they say, because together they could figure out that the real enemy are the war profiteers on both sides, colluding. And besides, killing is the most reliable way of silencing someone. That's why people should also universally reject killing - based on someone else's word - unless they are directly threatened themselves.)
First, general power dynamics are in no way inherently predicated on misinforming people. That can help, but it's really quite a lot simpler than that: A commands B and C. A approaches D and says get in line or we'll kill you. D says OK or dies. ABCD approach E and repeat this process. The person with the most connections, actual real connections, wins. The challenge to building more connections than A is not having a cell phone, but rather attempting to find connections who aren't truly loyal to A, because anyone who is loyal will out you and have you killed for treason. Indeed cell phones make this harder, not easier, because they leave a paper trail of evidence that you were attempting to betray the existing group.
Second, mobile phones do nothing to change this dynamic in favor of the weak, and in fact, are one of the most powerful tools for cementing existing power structures ever created. They are both the ultimate channel to propagate misinformation, and are also 24/7 surveillance devices that will betray any attempt to conspire against those in power. If you want to foster rebellion against your evil overlords, your organization absolutely cannot use phones without giving themselves away, which puts you at a massive technical disadvantage. And even if you try to forbid members from using phones, they're so deeply ingrained into daily life that somebody will inevitably slip up and give the surveillance state info on your planned rebellion. I would go so far as to say we can expect to never see a successful rebellion against anybody with the level of surveillance as the US, in our lifetimes.
In the absence of civic order, personal relationships between the elites are what matters. Your thugs can easily take everything you own, but they don't inherit your relationships. A billionaire in an isolated self-sufficient bunker has nothing to offer to thugs who are already inside. A billionaire in a bunker that relies on trade with other nearby bunkers is in a much stronger position.