I fear you may not understand that engaging in political meta-commentary when you see someone say "AI" helps Trump politicize the term, even if you do so from an anti-Trump perspective. As a veteran of multiple language change wars, all of which I found incredibly obnoxious, the only times I've had to abandon useful old terminology is when some political movement successfully adopted that terminology as a badge.
I don’t think that’s true? I never did research math myself, but the people I’ve known who do would definitely invest time in making a proof clearer and better even if they had the idea basically correct. There’ve been multiple recent stories of researchers saying “we’re going to publish this lame proof that isn’t up to our standards because the AI companies let us know they’re going to scoop us if we don’t”.
Hegseth has maintained a consistent, principled position for his entire tenure that the military needs to be visibly murdering people. He routinely posts snuff footage where they murder purported “narcoterrorists”. I really think it’s wrong to postulate any deeper explanation; he’s just an evil man who prefers to do bad things rather than good ones.
The question is why the situation is what it is. Did OpenAI publish a large volume of unreadable proofs because that was their best attempt to contribute to the field of mathematics? Or does OpenAI feel that it’s more profitable for them if people come to see mathematics as something that’s less focused on understanding and more focused on using AI to generate proofs?
It’s incredible how dedicated Hegseth is to being evil. So many regime officials are merely greedy or suck-ups, and he’s out here manufacturing completely pointless evil that Trump did not ask for and will not benefit from.
I don’t believe that people running this kind of scam are engaging in careful moral reasoning about acceptable victims. The man who did this would surely have stolen $50,000 from my grandma if he thought he saw a clever way to get away with it.
As discussed upthread, the PERM process is widely understood to be a farce, so it wouldn’t be terribly surprising if the government has evidence of a Microsoft executive who wrote down that they didn’t want to replace a senior developer with 6 years of tenure. Everyone including JD Vance knows that’s a dumb outcome, but under the PERM regulations, you can only get that guy a visa if you tried and failed to replace him first.
People saying "fake news always existed" are trying to explain that the quantity of it is not so different as many modern commentaries seem to think. 25 years ago, the kind people Tweeting about how protests are satanic weren't stewing in impotence, they were writing church leaflets about how Pokemon and the New World Order were satanic.
I really think it's intentional. I've seen a number of people explain, self-reflectively and in detail, that mainstream media outlets are bad because they don't spend enough time covering various outrages and taking heated positions on issues.
There wouldn't be a clear "undo" button after years of joint operation. A future administration could in principle order the Time Warner assets to be spun back off, but realistically that'd be a huge headache, and I'd rather they spend their time and political capital imprisoning everyone who negotiated the deal.
I would call that kind of thing "a very structured framework and guardrails". You'd have to come up with entirely different solutions if you want the agent to receive payments or monitor your budget.
I think most people draw a strong distinction between privacy violations that are done "to them" and privacy issues with things they've chosen to use, even if they're quite similar from a technological perspective. I'd bet a lot of anti-Flock people have location sharing enabled on their phone.
KalshiEX, the platform, makes a bit more money from losers because they subsidize sophisticated winners through their market maker program.
Kalshi Trading LLC, the market maker which is fully owned by KalshiEX and has no independent online presence, makes money from losers in the same way as traditional gambling platforms. Kalshi's claims that this is an independent company are obviously absurd. (It's fair, I think, to say that the structure of the market limits their ability to make windfalls from severe mispricing.)
Isn't there quite a bit of space between "so easy a minimum wage intern could do it" and your original claim that it would have cost millions of dollars to produce these results?
> She went on: "If you ask our millions of traders, they would emphatically tell you that an exchange model is significantly healthier than a sportsbook model: our profits aren't tied to trader losses, so we don't have the same predatory incentives."
Really wish the author had pushed back more on this. They have different predatory incentives, benefitting from encouraging people to make a large number of slightly stupid bets rather than a smaller number of very stupid ones. I would love to hear Kalshi explain what non-predatory value the 15 minute crypto markets have.
You're missing important background here. Federal law requires the commission to be non-partisan, defined as no more than three of the five commissioners being from the same party. But the Trump regime has subverted this rule by simply refusing to appoint more than three commissioners. That's why these quorum shenanigans are necessary. The proponents of this rule are acting in bad faith and will immediately file a lawsuit when the next administration tries to apply it in the other direction.
These are corporate regulations, it's not really about putting individuals in jail. I do expect that there could be companies where trying to remove an LLM watermark is a fireable offense, especially in the EU where many kinds of decisions must be made by an accountable human being and may not be delegated to an AI system.
There's lots of regulations that are easy to bypass. It's absolutely trivial to, say, pull 30 amps from a home circuit rated for only 15 amps. But most people will just trip the fuse because they don't know what they're doing, and the existence of the regulation makes it easy to prove ill intent for anyone who does know what they're doing but causes harm anyway.
That's fair. I personally was a bit put out when I discovered this, I had assumed most of the donations were going to research, but advocacy and training have some value and I could believe that other people fully expect that's what the AHA does.
While that's true, the AHA does not perform medical treatments or have an in-house research lab.
If someone's really passionate about putting up healthy living posters and shifting the cost of CPR education from healthcare providers, more power to them! But my guess is that most AHA donors don't know or ask what exactly their donations are accomplishing.
When people talk about ineffective altruism, they're generally talking about organizations like the American Heart Association, which spends over half of annual donations on payroll (https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/135...). I don't think many people in the effective altruist movement would complain about a targeted trust that successfully and reliably achieves some niche goal.
Nor do LLMs. What escaped its box and attacked HuggingFace was a system composed of a swarm of LLMs plus their attendant harnesses, which continually fed it instructions and chain-of-thought reasoning while feeding parts of its output to a code execution tool.
There's some angles from which this distinction doesn't matter too much, because begging bad actors not to develop a similar harness won't work. But the frontier labs seem to be taking it for granted that the LLM is the only part of this system that matters, and we don't need to ask any questions about whether their commercial products should ship with a harness that's allowed to execute unvetted code and spawn hundreds of subagents.
You might benefit from thinking critically about who and what you consider to be greedy. If you don't, it's easy to be tricked by various kinds of shell games, where certain kinds of work are never considered "greedy" or certain kinds of charity make the donor appear disproportionately generous. One game that's become pretty well known is how many "donations" to well-funded schools are in fact admissions payments for wealthy kids.
I didn't flag it, but I'm not sure I understand what's meant to be interesting about this website, which seems to be a vibecoded UI around a small list of random messages associated with Elon Musk. The first three on the list are a public statement he made, an email he denies sending, and an email which Musk (probably) instructed whoever runs hr@opm.gov to send.
I'm speculating, but in a road rage case, I can imagine a lot of scenarios where depicting the victim as gracious and forgiving would make the perpetrator look worse. There's no legal principle that sentencing should be reduced if the victim forgives you, after all. Some contemporary coverage I found in a quick search (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/road-rage-victim-speaks...) indicates he got the maximum sentence.
I feel like you're misunderstanding something here. Nearly every obese adult has unsuccessfully tried a number of other strategies to lose weight. What GLP-1s immediately illustrate to most people who try them is that there's a real, physical problem with their appetite that only GLP-1s successfully correct. A few weeks after I started taking GLP-1s, I started to feel full again for the first time since college. Everyone should work out daily and maintain a varied, healthy diet, but I did and they never made me feel that way alone.
I do encourage anyone who can remotely afford the name-brand drugs to buy them, but even with price cuts they're still quite expensive. So while I'm never going to encourage buying pharmaceuticals from sketchy grey market producers, I find it very hard to tell the people who can't afford GLP-1s that they have to just deal. It'd be like not being able to buy painkillers.
I often use simple prompts like “make it faster” and get back functionally correct commits. When I review them, I often discover that they didn’t do what I really wanted - sometimes Claude made it faster by incurring expensive costs, or doing a migration that would be risky in prod, or making a tradeoff that’s not worth it.
Perhaps I could set up a workflow to handle this without reading the code. I’ve seen people who make Claude fill out arcane templates, and then spend their time reviewing reports and tinkering with loops or whatever. But why would I want to read a TPS report about the code rather than just reading the code?