anon291

Yeah I read the title and did a double-take. It's an uninteresting choice for systems like these. The more pressing concerns, which go undescribed, are the exact mathematical choices behind the actual model. Rust provides almost zero value here because tensor stuff is all just 2d-arrays of floats for the most part.

Seems similar to a neural turing machine.

For the most part they deserve it. My mom went in to teaching in her older years after a successful career in corporate America. She also thought teachers were being unfairly targeted, but after interacting with teachers and administrators, she believes the targeting is not enough. She thinks we should blame them more. By and large the normal people end up leaving the profession.

Well exactly, and the democratic party is basically a mouthpiece of the teacher's unions. To criticize the teachers union at all would quickly remove you from the democrat party. My mom has shifted rightward a lot but is not a die-hard republican. She is a die-hard never democrat though. She votes straight ticket against the voter's pamphlet issued by the California's teacher's association every year.

Nothing. She recognized there was no way to fight back. Her principal just felt the need to tell her that if she were to try to defend herself, she would be the one held to be at fault by the principal. The union similarly did nothing. There is no quicker way to radicalize a pro-union liberal than to be told from their union that they will not defend you against threats of sexual assault at work.

That the reason the kids are violent is because they come from cultures where violence is glorified. The problems causing violence are not societal ones as the progressives claim but ones innate to those particular subcultures.

She was threatened with police action by her principal were she to attempt to fight back.

Not that she'd stand a chance against a group of determined post pubescent males.

In her case her suggestion that certain kids be sent to the police or removed from the classroom for rape threats were met with accusations of racism.

liberalism tends to see all of these issues as the results of the students being victims of something. She believes her students suffered from poor parenting and placed the blame on the families.

In her case, she's a brown woman teaching brown and black kids. She used to think the police were being racial in their interactions. Now she's like... Well they are hurting people and we can't help if the races of the perpetrators just so happen to be whatever

A whole slew of things she just changed her mind on essentially. She felt lied to by the progressive establishment. Moreover when she tried to do something or complain to the union, she was basically thrown under the bus. So her final bit of union sympathy also left her.

My mom received threats of rape and assault and direct violence against her vehicle as a teacher in los Angeles public schools. Turned her from a bleeding heart liberal into a die hard conservative.

Yes it's gone too far. And the administrations don't care. Addressing it requires acknowledging uncomfortable truths

I agree that if you're engaging in the tech business you should have an umbrella llc. I have been asked multiple times to do projects for people and it's always easier to invoice as an llc with everything already set up.

However most software engineers don't engage in the tech business at all outside of regular employment. It's not useful for them

Criminal law is something that applies to humans. Indeed if an Uber executive or manager was shown to have hidden the rape they could be prosecuted. Otherwise generally for a criminal matter, the individual who commit the crime is civilly responsible.

However, when it comes to selling products, the company executives do carry criminal liability. That is why Amodei et Al want to make it so that the models are seen as independent and the government cares them out a safe harbor. They know that under the current and traditional interpretation of the law that they are criminally liable.

While true for individuals, companies actually have to generally warrant the things they make. This is a basic aspect of common law. In particular, Anthropic et al have not decided whether the models are products or independent agents. But under both paradigms, they would be responsible for the result. If the models are products, then a product that goes on to cause damage that was not advertised as the original purpose of the thing is completely the company's fault. As a corrolary, if the product was known to be able to cause damage (which Anthropic admits now) and the company failed to take appropriate safeguards, the company is still at fault.

In the case that the model is an agent, on par with a human employee, then once again Anthropic et al are responsible. If an employee does something wrong, the company is liable, unless you can show that the employee was sophisticated enough to take independent action. Anthropic would have to show extensive vetting of their models that the result was truly impossible to predict. Otherwise, they knowingly 'hired' an agent that was potentially dangerous. This is criminal negligence.

We don't need any new laws here. Standard ancient English common law suffices.

This is the basic reason we homeschool. People probably assume it's because we're crazy religious nuts, because we do attend church regularly, but that alone is not enough... there are plenty of religious schools. The real issue is that American education has been taken over by this bizarre desire to not memorize things.

My mom was an inner city public school teacher. Coming from a poor background herself and being an immigrant, she was excited to help underprivileged kids after spending years in corporate America.

Six years, several rape threats, several attempted assaults, and one vehicle destructure later, she gave up on the whole thing. Now a few decades later, she's an AI proponent.

No one wants to face the cold hard truth of what the average American school is like. The people in charge send their kids to fancy schools in nice areas or shove wax in their ears and put blinders on to not see the reality of their child's education (see the recent article in the New York Times).

A sad situation all around.

for our parents generation, mortgage rates were 10%+

We consider it 'misogynistic' because women have more difficulty engaging in certain pursuits (career and enterprise) while more easy engaging in others (child-rearing, family life). It's because of our own bias that career and enterprise is worth more than family life that we say the world as a whole is 'misogynistic' instead of the truth, which is that some areas of life, it's easier to be a woman and in others a man.

Sorry I mean condemned*

There is no bucket. There is affirmative action. If you can prove you're a part of a group for which affirmative action has been granted they'll give you a certificate saying you're part of that group. This is in no way tying you to that group. It's just a scheme to give affirmative action.

This is like saying America's racial quotas (or former ones) put you in a 'bucket'. Caste is essentially race / genetics. You are not bucketed, it is simply a reality of your ancestry. Of course you can't change it.. you cannot change your genetics. This is a ridiculous goal post.

It's a catch 22. India tracks caste because they're trying to get rid of it. America doesn't track race or social status or whatever. Legal status means nothing really. Especially in urban India, it's becoming very irrelevant what your background is. Are there bigoted regressive people? Yeah of course, but I mean... Those are everywhere. Are there more in India than elsewhere? Probably, compared to urban western nations. But India is like a century behind on social progress id estimate. Still ahead of China where your status is literally tied to your place of birth though.

As for changing caste... You only need to reference it if you're seeking government benefit. If you don't care about it, stop keeping track, and don't share it with your kids... They'll never know and just get assigned general or whatever they call it. Of course, since caste is literally genetic, anyone doing a genetic test will quickly figure it out. However a gene test is not enough for seeking caste benefit status if I understand correctly, so this is as erased as you can get

I'm from what would have been considered a low caste in India. The moment people mention India, people bring up the caste system as if it's the cause of every issue there or as if other countries don't have similar problems. Unequal wealth distributions are common. While it makes sense for Indian nationals to want their government to do better than other countries and eliminate social inequality (a feat no other country has ever accomplished), outside observers comparing ought to benchmark countries against one another fairly. All countries have social inequality. If India were to eliminate social inequality it would become superior to most countries on the planet. That seems to me a utopian dream, but I understand why someone living there might want that.

For the rest of us, I think we need to be reasonable in our assessments, especially when the other country under discussion is China.

I am a critic of Indias caste system but China has a state sanctioned caste system while the caste system is condensed by the Indian state and the state takes explicit (many think it over does it) steps to try to mitigate the effects of the caste system

China on the other hand defined your government benefits and the jobs you may get based on where you were born. People born rurally have to fake documents to work illegally in cities.

India has a ton of problems, but china is much worse when it comes to human rights. It's not even right to compare the two countries. India is a flawed somewhat liberal democracy (especially for the region of the world, India is a shining beacon on a hill surrounded by repressive regimes), while China is essentially a dictatorship

You know... Linux devs are not in this for the money and ux research will only converge on local minima. Linux devs should do what they think and if anyone wants to use it they will. Me personally I've found my Zen with xmonad and emacs and believe the world would be a better place if everything was filed and controlled by simple keystrokes. The user experience is too notch. Always works, stable as a rock, never slows down.

They should make more things like that and not worry too much about the average user. The average user will end up doing whatever capital interests dictate they should

None of these were legal marriages. Of course anyone can stage whatever they want. This has always been legal even here in the US. The articles point out that no one actually held the emperor married to these men and just put it up to the emperor's eccentricity.

Moreover in the case of elagabalus, it's possible the stories were made up to discredit him and if they weren't made up they were highly scandalous and not at all well accepted. Forget marriage, even the insinuation he had slept with men was considered too scandalous to mention..

> Elagabalus had nothing at all to make up for his vices, which are of such a kind that it is too disgusting even to allude to them

how do you do a 'scientific' study on a historical question? Did they simulate multiple worlds and do statistical analyses to see how societies develop? Of course not... this is an archaeological/historical question not a scientific one.

> accurate knowledge than dozens of people

Yes, if you look at experts outside the main Western academic circles, they're pretty much in agreement about it.

> either you're a genius or you severely overestimate yourself.

Actually, my main superpower is reading

There is no debate. If someone were to point out a written record of an actual marriage that is using equivalent rites to a heterosexual marriage with exact legal recognition of that contract plus additionally rights over children, I will relent. This is not some ideological position. It's simply an absence of any such thing. For example, it should not be controversial to say that surrogacy is a modern day thing and that there is no historic record prior to it of a woman being considered the biological mother of a child she didn't bear. People are having their feelings about gay marriage override simple historical fact.

The Wikipedia page on the history of gay marriage makes the exact same point I've made. My statement is not controversial and is the accepted view. There are countless examples of gay people considering themselves married, but without societal recognition equivalent to heterosexual marriage. You cannot consider this the same as gay marriage because gay rights activists said that similar arrangements in the modern day were not enough and they needed to be married in an equivalent fashion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

There is no proof of homosexual marriage in imperial Rome. 'Marriage' as we practice it today does not have a direct analogue in Rome, but all the institutions one could point to that could be likened to it explicitly stated it was between a male and female. Can you please provide written proof? If it is common, it should not be hard to find in the extremely prolific writings of the Romans.

There is more to 'the world' than America. America was an aberration for legislating marriage so closely. Consider that someone in India in the 1800s would have thought that caste simply 'was', whereas the rest of the world would have been shocked by it. Similarly, anti-miscegenation laws, while common in America, and easy to think of as 'normal' from an American perspective, were not that common. Almost every culture normally socially approved of a man taking on a foreign wife, and most cultures welcomed foreign men who adapted into it marrying a local woman. There are countless examples from almost every part of the globe. It wasn't exactly uncommon. For the last two thousand years, the largest religions on the planet, would have supported a man and woman of different races to be married. Neither Catholicism nor Orthodoxy nor Islam nor Hinduism nor Buddhism (which together constitute the vast majority of the world) would have ever had any issues with interracial marriage. In fact, they would have encouraged it against a non-believer of the respective traditions. Not a single one would have supported gay marriage.

There is no trend towards liberalism except in western nations, and even that is debatable. People operate under this assumption that everything magically becomes more liberal. It doesn't. There have been regressions and progressions. Progress is not guaranteed.

> Plenty of academic study backs this up, if you care to research it.

With all due respect to the academics, there is more to the world than the Western world and most academics in the West have no ability to comprehend the East. I say this as someone whose family is from 'the East' and so I think I have some more insight into it than many people do. The simple truth is that about 3.1 billion people alone live in India and China and the majority of people in the world live outside the West and these areas are not seeing any sort of great social progress. Sure, there's a lot of economic progress, but social progress in the Western sense is absent (progress in the non-western sense is continuing). There is no evidence that any of these countries are any more closer to embracing gay marriage than they were before. On the periphery of the west, such as the island of Bermuda, they actually repealed gay marriage. Even California, if they were to ask the voters, would repeal gay marriage due to the presence of Asians, Hispanics and blacks, who voted against it the last time they were asked.

Your article is literally saying what I'm saying. I agree with you... homosexual partnerships are common, but claiming that they were the equivalent of marriage is ahistoric:

> At the same time, many of these relationships might be more clearly understood as mentoring relationships between adult men and young boys rather than an analog of marriage.

Of the western world it says:

> Conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave, amasius) would have no legal standing in Roman law (apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases)

Of China:

> While the relationship was clearly approved by the wider community, and was compared to heterosexual marriage, it did not involve a religious ceremony binding the couple.

Of early modern times:

> Michel de Montaigne, a 16th-century French philosopher and prominent essayist, reports having heard a third-party description of a same-sex wedding occurring some years earlier using the usual Tridentine marriage ceremonies of the Roman Catholic Church. The ceremony was said to have occurred a few years before 1581, at the San Giovanni a Porta Latina basilica in Rome and the participants were burned at the stake by the Vatican

It then claims Anne Lister married Ann Walker, but if you read the article detailing this marriage, there wasn't any sanctioned ceremony. Rather the two women took communion together and thereafter they considered themselves married. There was no socially sanctioned recognition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Lister#Relationship_with_...

> Eventually the women took communion together on Easter Sunday (30 March) 1834 in Holy Trinity Church, Goodramgate, York, and thereafter considered themselves married, but without legal recognition.

It literally says all this in your article. Did you read it?

The only references to pre-modern homosexual marriage are hearsay reports of Siwa oasis and the Phillipines. Neither of these cite written records or any sort of proof, and both of these would have been in somewhat literate societies.