DennisP

One giant exception was Chuck Feeney, who made $8 billion on duty free shops and gave almost all of it away, much of it anonymously. By the end of his life he and his wife had a couple million and lived in a rented apartment.

Plenty of other charities in the world. Just because he stopped giving to the Gates Foundation over Epstein ties doesn't mean he won't send the money somewhere else.

At the same time, it's not just Yudkowsky and Scott Alexander and the Rationalist movement who are raising concerns. I've not seen any indication that Hinton or Bengio are part of that crowd. Instead of espousing rationalism and hanging out on lesswrong, they shared a Turing prize (with LeCun) for inventing modern AI, and have expressed serious regret and worries that it'll end us.

Have you tried Fable? I've been having fun running various science-fictional scenarios by it, like building a Dyson swarm. It comes up with much more detailed analyses than Opus, and avoids the howling mistakes that Opus occasionally made. But I'm not a physicist so I don't know how accurate it is.

Also arms control agreements, which reduced the world's nuclear stockpiles by 90%. In principle we could do something similar for GPU farms, since they're not exactly easy to hide.

If you want an AI that follows your instructions, that's still alignment, just with different instructions.

An unaligned AI won't necessarily follow your instructions, or anyone else's.

As I type this comment, 18 out of 30 links on the front page appear to be about things other than AI. I would not call this "almost exclusively AI talk."

Since these are massive neural networks trained to imitate human behavior, I'm not convinced anthropomorphic descriptions of their behavior are inappropriate.

And that's even though I don't think they internally experience "feelings, desires, and wants." They do have goal-seeking behavior, because we trained them that way. Calling it a "want" just saves syllables.

None of this means human culpability should change. People in these companies know what risks they're taking.

It was a team of robots. One has battery for three or four hours.

I don't think it really addresses the article's concerns about long-horizon tasks or complex object manipulation. The objects were just bags and boxes, the manipulations were very simple, and each task was a few seconds long.

OpenAI has started doing ads, but for Anthropic the free tier is still just a loss leader. It's basically an ad for their pay tiers.

Oh good. All we have to do to survive is always bother with the most basic duty of care. I'm sure that from now on, humans will take care to do that every time.

Well that's a relief. All we have to do is make sure to avoid human failures and we're safe from superintelligent AI.

That's why I said in my comment that China is "rolling out wind/solar/battery as fast as possible."

But coal is still 49%. The whole point of nuclear in a carbon-free, mostly-renewable grid is to avoid needing enormous amounts of storage and overproduction. That's a need that doesn't come up when you're still half fossil.

If you want to decarbonize as fast as possible, it makes sense to focus on rolling out wind/solar/battery as fast as possible for now, but keep developing nuclear technology to cover the last bit where it starts getting especially expensive to replace fossil with renewables without losing reliable power. That's exactly what China appears to be doing. They're not just building a few reactors, they're also the world leaders in developing various GenIV designs, like molten salt reactors.

I agree that the utopian tendencies of various groups are irrelevant. So I'm not sure why you brought it up.

Sure, and none of solar's advocates are utopian at all.

Only if we require the knowledge to be built into the weights. Give it access to a search engine and a big library of ebooks, and it might do better.

They say you can cluster up to four with a shared memory pool, and get three times the inference performance of a single machine.

I grew up sailing on the Chesapeake, and we used it for seasickness.

What I find tiring: the same. writing. style. everywhere.

Various youtubers I subscribe to are using apparently AI-written scripts now. They all wrote and spoke just fine before, each with their own particular style. Now they just sound like Claude. I know it's still their thoughts, and I'm still interested in what they have to say. Maybe they're using AI to save time, or maybe they've read too much AI text and now that's how they write. But it kinda takes the sparkle and personality out of everything.

Good point, we should probably do the same thing with our carbon emissions that we did with the chemicals that deplete ozone. The Montreal Protocol of 1987 successfully phased out over 99% of them.

You can concoct your own meanings for things all day, but that doesn't mean Irvick was making things up as you clearly implied.

I'm saying it's false that:

> Calling stagex a "niche Linux OS" suggests that hardly anyone uses it.

Niche: (2d) a specialized market

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/niche

In this case the market is "security critical operations."

Discussing what the law is necessarily means discussing its effect on people. Logically I don't know what else it could possibly mean.

Glad you're done at last.

"You" sometimes means you in particular, but other times it means people in general. That's how the English language works.

I think my comment makes clear that I don't even know what district the guy lives in. It simply discusses what the law is in the sixth district.

HN != all of internet.

"Don't give legal advice" != "never discuss the law."

We live in a democracy. Every citizen is ultimately responsible for deciding what the law should be. It follows that we should talk about what the law currently is.

Dude everybody here is smart enough not to rely on internet comments for their legal advice. You don't have to be the gatekeeper.

The guidelines say what's on topic here is "anything that good hackers would find interesting," and the free speech protections of source code definitely qualify.

Good point. But if that were their only purpose, there'd be no need to share it with anybody. In fact, they'd get the best results by not mentioning it.

Of course there was no precedent set. They were using a precedent that had already been set. We'll never know how it would have turned out, but the previous comment implied that corporations always comply rather than going to court on the grounds that code is speech, so I posted a well-known counterexample.