antonvs

Perhaps, but not the way Flock does it. Transparency, oversight, controls - all essentially just missing.

"Disruption" to these people means "try to sell the most legally questionable service possible until we get slapped down by the society we're trying to extract money from."

You're probably just parroting David Foster Wallace.

It's the ultimate expression of US corruption. There's not even a pretense of fighting for justice any more, just fighting justice.

The federal government forced California to change its law. A federal court struck down Prop 8 in 2010. California appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, and lost.

If you don’t care about browser diversity, and choose to use a Chrome-based browser, that’s part of the collective’s decision. There are literally billions of people just like you, which is why Chrome wins.

You’re trying to act put-upon, but you’re actually supporting the dominant monopoly side. Your apathy is winning, why do you still feel the need to comment? A bit of guilt or cognitive dissonance, perhaps?

If the choice is fighting back or being killed, many people will choose to fight back. If you’re fighting back against a state, then the form that fighting back will take is asymmetric warfare, which is typically described as “terrorism” by the state doing the murdering.

But with all this in mind, you want to sit back and say, “They really ought to be more polite about it.”

“Sympathy” is not much use in situations like these. “Sorry your people are being murdered” doesn’t really help.

If all these claims were being made about some tech further along than LLMs currently are, they might be plausible. But LLMs on their own are not going to be “superintelligence” of the kind Altman is currently cynically spreading fear about. We know their limitations, and those limitations can’t simply be eliminated with more training or better harnesses.

> Just imagine that people ringing the fire alarms are being sincere.

The top three possibilities here are: they’re not being sincere, they’re just marketing; they’re being sincere, but they don’t understand the technology very well and are putting too much weight in what the first group are saying; they’re talking about a risk further in the future than OpenAI’s latest model.

No-one serious outside of OpenAI believes “this is the one”. At best, you’re conflating arguments being made on entirely different timelines, falling for the exact kind of equivocation Altman is relying on.

Perhaps if they could explain why they don’t want that information to be available, they’ll understand how their victims feel.

It’s driven by a large “I want to believe” factor. A model that can do some of what an LLM can do, but is smaller, cheaper, faster? There’s huge demand for that, and Jev has exposed that demand.

For example, when an LLM “predicts the next word” in code it’s writing for an existing software project, that prediction takes into account an enormous amount of context. The results of that demonstrate what we would normally call “understanding” and “reasoning,” at a level that outclasses most humans in many respects. Calling this “next token prediction” is a bit like calling human speech “next word saying”. Sure, it’s true in some superficial sense, but as a description of a technology, it’s terrible.

You should also keep in mind that for all we know, the human brain processes language in much the same way, which would make humans mere “next token predictors” with a more complicated harness.

Do you believe avoiding embarrassment is more important than any moral position?

    ....-----

    ---/Shark\---Terry Tao

> In a naive tiling window manager

Ok, so you're arguing with a straw man. Do you have a point worth trying to understand?

In the Flock camera case, there's no out-group: the speech being suppressed is supporting the rights of US citizens.

On a scale of zero to Mussolini, the US is much closer to the right of that scale at this point.