To be fair, he was genuinely a demanding and abrasive personality.
I once saw him absolutely dismantle, over the course of an hour, an intern that made the mistake of asking one stupid question.
378 karma · joined January 26, 2025
I once saw him absolutely dismantle, over the course of an hour, an intern that made the mistake of asking one stupid question.
They don’t buy the product, and the product can’t be used in the things they do buy.
Our military is simply choosing not to do business with them, or anyone that depends on them.
If you believed in democracy, you wouldn’t be supporting the EA-infected corporation that tried to make our democratic institutions subordinate to their corporate decision making.
Any dependency on a company that thinks they have that moral authority and has the technical means to enforce it is absolutely a risk to the supply chain.
If you want to blame someone or something for this, we should start with Dario and “effective altruism”.
Our military must also not be dependent on a private company that believes it has the moral prerogative to control our military’s decisions, and would have the technical capability to do so.
… but I sincerely doubt Apple gave a ~$1M “gold bar” to a political leader, in front of cameras, using a patently transparent ploy like “it’s just a detachable base”.
That would be a phenomenally stupid and obvious violation of bribery law.
And if Trump does keep it as a personal gift, it will be included in a financial disclosure report.
Or perhaps selling it directly?
Has this ever worked? Do you have any evidence whatsoever that this is a good idea?
Subjectively applied, uncaring triage that leaves people poorly cared for is exactly what happens when you lack sufficient capacity, aren’t paying your staff enough to care, and staff's incentives aren’t sufficiently tied to their outcomes.
My father, an ER doctor in the US, was losing his shit over their quality of care when I FaceTimed him afterwards.
Your lack of compassion is also exactly what produces these kinds of systems. Who cares about the actual outcomes or the affected individuals, as long as your ideological ideals aren’t challenged.
> The second they dispatch an ambulance, you owe them how much exactly these days? $5000?
My insurance covered all of it. The driver’s insurance reimbursed my own.
And even if they hadn’t, I’d rather be in the hole financially than spend 12 hours in pain and have persistent issues caused by free health care doing a hack job putting me back together.
The US healthcare system isn’t perfect, but I’ve got at least another four decades left on this planet, and the cost of US healthcare is nothing compared to the cost of living out those decades in a body that’s not as healthy as possible.
The price is only good if you ignore the outcomes and what you’re paying on the backend through taxes.
Every single time it triggered, it was due to a prompt written by their own model in a dynamic workflow. The self-serving nanny oversight has to go.
The fact that they label model distillation as an “attack” is genuinely hilarious after they “distilled“ their models from all of our work, and continue to do so.
I believe AI is here to stay and an incredibly powerful tool, but these companies, and especially Dario and Altman, are the very last people I want to see in charge of it.
I literally would’ve been better off flying to New York. I still have scars and nerve damage from the incredibly poor care in Italy’s medical system.
In the US, I was rushed into the ER in an ambulance and seen immediately after a car hit me while I was bicycling — and that was just because they were worried about the speed at which the accident occurred. They had me patched up within the hour. I was fine, road rash and sore for a couple weeks.
There’s no silver bullet here, but I’m very sure that healthcare is not a good analogy for nuclear power.
I’m also very sure that anyone that advocates for government healthcare should try actually using it in one of these countries. I hope you enjoy waiting and long-term adverse health effects from poor, delayed, and inaccessible care.
Of course "a felon has previously committed a felony" is tautological. But "a person who has committed a felony is substantially more likely to commit serious crimes in the future" isn't.
It's a well-established empirical claim, and that's why they're prohibited persons.
As for magically predicting whether someone will become a prohibited person: we can’t, and even if we could, that would mean preemptively restricting a constitutional right.
As for the conversation, that claim, and others, are not as self-evident or universally held as was posited.
I hope you won’t have to restore it from tape!
The three major categories of prohibited persons are felons, domestic abusers, and habitual drug users.
Guess what all three have in common?
Personally, I think people should be as free as possible to sell goods privately without the government getting involved. It's not a loophole, it's how things should work.
If you think any of these laws prevent felons and other prohibited persons from getting guns, you must be remarkably unfamiliar with felons, and their willingness to commit felonies. Most felons I know through friends/family have a gun (often stored somewhere plausibly deniable), and it's not a particular secret.
These laws primarily harm law-abiding citizens — who were never the problem in the first place — far more than they restrict prohibited persons from acquiring guns.
The same thing will occur with restrictions on open models, but arguably the results are far more harmful — limiting the technological and economic capacity of the people and countries we have to worry about the least, leaving the playing field open for those we have to worry about the most.
Human order is fundamentally kept by there being a true threat of violence enforcing it.
If you forget that reality and abandon your ability to project violence, someone else will remind you.
Charlie Hebdo was not that long ago. Anti-women practices are the predominant norm. The list of regressive and oppressive political norms is practically endless.
Nothing here absolves Christianity or any other religion of its crimes either, but (1) the sexism is on another scale entirely, and (2) we’ve been far more successful as a global society of separating those religions from their political aspirations.
Slavery and the death penalty are poor analogies, and not just because slavery was stopped through quite a bit of violence, and the death penalty/imprisonment exists as an alternative to vigilante justice only by virtue of the state's monopoly on violence.
"If everyone just ..." is always silly, but it's especially silly when it comes to the belief that order can be enforced through anything other than -- ultimately -- the threat of violence. Everyone will not "just".
It would be fascinating to revisit this comment with you after the midterms and see whether your beliefs have changed in any way.
It’s already often difficult to get a human on the phone.
The irony is palpable.
> I trust actual statistics experts
I listed the issues, but if you need an expert to explain them to you in detail, then perhaps you have neither the statistical nor media literacy necessary here.
1) Selection. Only 9 accounts, no interaction, short period of time. This is not a sufficiently large or realistic sample. That is also not how users interact with the product — for example, things like dwell time directly and materially impact the algorithmic weighting. They specifically avoided any measurable interactions.
2) Base rate. They did not know if the results reflected the base rate across the platform, or algorithmic bias. In other words, did X itself skew right, or did the algorithm.
3) Unreliable classification. Their own experts rated its accuracy poorly, and those are the people most ideologically aligned with the progressive political consultancy that trained the classification model in the first place.
Never mind the “propaganda” claim, which would require showing that not only was the algorithmic bias real (not demonstrated), but that the intent was propaganda instead of — for example — simply the result of maximizing for user engagement. None of which was shown.
It’s little odd that you replied to the least substantive fact. Disingenuous even.
> "brazenly disingenuous" in such context is a ridiculous and emotive over statement.
“… behavior that's not totally honest or sincere. It's disingenuous when people pretend to know less about something than they really do.”
Rather like ignoring the methodology errors, or the fact that the classification model was developed by an “unapologetically progressive” political consultancy, or that their own experts rated its accuracy poorly.