cmdli

"Supply chain risk" specifically refers to risk of malicious attack or sabotage through the supply chain, not all risks associated with supply chains.

A vendor with particularly poor QA might be a risk in your supply chain but isn't a "supply chain risk" according to this designation and neither would Anthropic be.

Selling a pen labeled "this pen will refuse to sign certain orders" is not sabotage or malicious and is thus not a supply chain risk. The DoD is free to not buy from Anthropic, but designating them as a supply chain risk is incorrect, as well as arguably arbitrary and capricious given their public criticism of Anthropic's beliefs.

That isn't sabotage, that is simply product design. Anthropic is free to create their products that refuse to kill people, and the DoD is free not to buy those products if they don't fit their needs.

However, that's not what a supply chain risk is. It's not an order to "don't buy these products if they don't work the way we want them to", its designating Anthropic as a national security threat because they might intentionally sabotage US military operations.

There are plenty of companies that are opposed to certain operations of the US military and refuse to sell to the US military on those grounds. None of them are considered a supply chain risk because that's not what a supply chain risk is.

A supply chain risk is specifically an entity that is likely to maliciously sabotage the US military's operations, such as Chinese companies that are controlled by the CCP. It is not simply a decision to "not buy from this company", but rather a wide-ranging decision that this particular company is a national security threat.

This also includes revenue sharing with distribution partners, which should probably be in COGS.

Would you care if your accountant liked to sit outside a high school and watch teenage girls with binoculars? What if a local shop owner was known to harass female employees? Everybody has a line somewhere.

I guess it depends on how to measure a single "person"? If you spun up 2000 copies of Terrance Tao, I wouldn't be surprised if you found a few new discoveries at the end of it.

It sounds like they are making a clear argument: models are getting worse for certain domains even while they are getting better at others.

I don't know if I agree with that but it doesn't seem like an irrational claim and does seem credible to me.

This reminds me a lot of the proof by construction for the 4-color theorem. It was only enabled by the advancement of computers and dissatisfied many of the computer scientists and mathematicians since it was a "brute force" approach.

I wonder if AI will end up being similar. Certain theorems get proven by AI but others do not. We haven't reached the limits of this yet and I haven't found a good argument for where those limits will be (I do doubt that there are no limits).

> I’m surprised there isn’t a Costco like medical group that’s nationwide, has a membership, and works solely to provide care efficiently.

What you are describing is an HMO, which hasn't had that much lower costs historically. Theoretically, you pay once and then they take care of you, but in practice costs haven't been that much lower.

Millions would also love to live in Europe. Does that make them better than the US?

The reports I have seen have shown significant decreases in revenue, from around $5B in 2021 to $2.5B in 2024: https://www.businessofapps.com/data/twitter-statistics/

I’m not sure about profit, but I do know that Twitter made $1.4B in profit in 2019 according to their SEC filings.

Twitter isn’t collapsing, but it’s hardly more profitable. In fact, the last numbers we know about them show >50% drop in revenue.

I think this is disingenuous. Charlie Kirk's content was specifically around "triggering the libs". He deliberately tried to make people angry, not looking to make any kind of common ground for discussion.

Haven't you ever turned a blind eye to somebody breaking corporate policy when you know its dumb and helps nobody? This is basically that. This kind of "immigration" is solely helpful but US immigration laws are intentionally obtuse and broken. The only "harm" here is that Hyundai didn't follow the right paperwork while helping build American manufacturing.

Because the documentation is intentionally obtuse and difficult, meaning that it is nearly impossible to get approval for these kinds of things even though they benefit the US immensely.

It's like if a neighbor fixes your fence without asking you first. Wrong? Maybe. Harmful? Definitely not.

The solution here is to work with South Korea to follow actual procedure, not arrest everybody and deport them. These people were objectively good for the American economy.

My experience has been entirely the opposite as an IC. If I spend the time to delve into the code base to the point that I understand how it works, AI just serves as a mild improvement in writing code as opposed to implementing it normally, saving me maybe 5 minutes on a 2 hour task.

On the other hand, I’ve found success when I have no idea how to do something and tell the AI to do it. In that case, the AI usually does the wrong thing but it can oftentimes reveal to me the methods used in the rest of the codebase.

If there is no provable link between the service and the identity, however, there isn't that much harm in the leak itself. It just becomes a list of names and ages which are a dime a dozen on the internet. Hell, if the identity service was the government itself then it would be entirely useless outside of getting a list of people who have a driver's license (is this public info already?)

And China is becoming increasingly isolated from the rest of the Western world. I'm amazed that the US is following suit.

How much of the code you are writing is tedious? If its a significant amount, the framework you are using could use some improvement.

You can't buy a single pizza with it now. Only by exchanging it for an actual, better currency

"Objective good" can only be determined through subjective opinion and belief. What is "good" is judged by us based on our own values, which can differ amongst people. While we may all trend towards similar values, there still can be significant differences amongst people. For example, some may value to live in a freer society while others may value a more restrictive yet more secure society.

A large part of the development of Europe, especially after the Renaissance, was resistance to the church and its historical teachings. The Reformation, Renaissance, rise of deism, scientific revolution, etc were all in response to and in many cases disagreeing with historical understanding. Saying "our current civilization is based on the teachings of the church" ignores the many aspects of our civilization that came about in spite of said church.

> tptacek wasn't making this argument six months ago.

Yes, but other smart people were making this argument six months ago. Why should we trust the smart person we don't know now if we (looking back) shouldn't have trusted the smart person before?

Part of evaluating a claim is evaluating the source of the claim. For basically everybody, the source of these claim is always "the AI crowd", because those outside the AI space have no way of telling who is trustworthy and who isn't.

That system depends on pulling funding for roads if they don’t follow the rules. Technically any state can opt out if they don’t receive any highway funding. Given the government isn’t giving large AI funding to states, they can’t do the same here.

In the few days following the election, there was a flood of conservative posters all over the place. After about a week, they all disappeared and Reddit returned to its usual politics. I think the difference you are seeing is an atypical amount of conservatism, not the other way around. Most people who voted for Harris still do not think that the lack of a primary was the issue.

I do, and I do so with the knowledge that this is a responsibility that has been placed on me, and others, by the gifts that have been given to me. I help others and contribute to society, as is my duty, and I expect others to do the same. I also expect the same responsibility, trustworthiness, and honor of those who have been given power.

Some of the people who have done the worst things in history have been well put together people. The man who is ruthless and puts himself before everything oftentimes ends up successful, wealthy, and with plenty of resources to take care of himself and the people he chooses. Does that make him a good person?

One of the most important, time-tested values is one of responsibility and honor. That means doing the right thing with the power that you do have, both by yourself and by others, even if it hurts you. We each are responsible for the environment (natural and man-made) that we inhabit, and to that extent it is our duty to help others and ourselves.

We have been given many, many resources at our disposal, and we bear the responsibility to use them well. Too often in our society we shirk that responsibility with the excuse "well, its not our problem".

Once they get to experience the US health system, they will riot.