frumplestlatz

Gambling is extractive by definition, so I’m not particularly convinced that it’s not a problem for most of the people that “enjoy” it.

The real marvel is that you tortured both the English language and your readers that much just to describe a UPS swap.

The US has 14 ballistic missile submarines, and just one of those submarines has sufficient firepower to decimate an entire continent.

… and those submarines only represent about half of our deployed nuclear arsenal.

We only agreed to nuclear arms constraints that left us with civilization-destroying capability, preserved our ability to keep improving and modernizing that arsenal, and locked out non-nuclear powers from development (and didn’t fully succeed at that).

Does that seem like a successful analogous example to you?

If anything, it’s a much better analogy for regulatory capture and incumbent entrenchment, not successful “pacing” of dangerous technology.

Which is more likely?

1) They genuinely want (and believe it is actually possible to achieve) an international agreement and governing body to “pace” AI development — and believe that governing body will be successful in doing so.

or

2) They see an opportunity for regulatory capture that grants them a stronger incumbent position and control over future AI regulation.

Actually calling someone a nazi for opposing mass immigration is certainly a choice, but it's not one we should be rewarding with deference. It carried an implicit threat, and the github issue was a form of triangulation intended to force others to take a position on something they're not party to.

I've never liked DHH, but as far as I can tell, he's neither a white supremacist or a nazi. I'm also not the viewpoint police, and I have zero trust or patience for anyone that tries to be.

Maybe when I finally retire

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.

He got away with it because the results were unique and valuable.

That’s literally what they’re doing. That’s what supply chain risk means.

They don’t buy the product, and the product can’t be used in the things they do buy.

You’re still absolutely free to do business with Anthropic.

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.

Anthropic took the position that our military’s decision making power should be subordinate to Anthropic’s constraints.

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”.

We cannot subordinate our military’s decision making power — in any arena — to a private company.

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.

There is no available information on the quantity of gold in that base …

… 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.

You would like to state to be in the business of permitting the sale of cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, et al?

Or perhaps selling it directly?

Has this ever worked? Do you have any evidence whatsoever that this is a good idea?

A broken limb, fractured elbow, deep cuts/lacerations/abrasions on my legs, elbow, and arms. I was in pain, my wounds were filled with gravel and dirt, and I just closed my eyes and laid on the floor and disassociated for twelve fucking hours. My girlfriend was losing her shit trying to advocate for me.

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.

Sometimes it works — but the overall quality, speed, and care outcomes remain, on average, very poor when compared to the US.

The price is only good if you ignore the outcomes and what you’re paying on the backend through taxes.

This was at the Ospedale San Carlo di Nancy in Rome.

I’ve had the same thing occur five or six times over the past week; they seem to be attempting to prevent anything resembling chain of thought extraction.

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.

And in a society that hasn’t made health care profitable (Italy), I waited 12 hours, literally on the floor, with a broken arm and covered in my own blood, before I was seen after a motorcycle accident.

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.

You’re confusing definition with inference.

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.

I’m not confused, I know exactly where that claim is coming from.

As for the conversation, that claim, and others, are not as self-evident or universally held as was posited.

Thanks for keeping the spirit of the old internet alive :)

I hope you won’t have to restore it from tape!

Failure to comply with burdensome regulation in the way that you would prefer does not inherently make it the problem of those you have burdened.

They've demonstrated comfort with and a capacity for ignoring the law.

“If you think any of these laws prevent felons and other prohibited persons …”

The three major categories of prohibited persons are felons, domestic abusers, and habitual drug users.

Guess what all three have in common?

That counts as many states, and most of the "anti-gun" states, which is what the parent actually said.

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.

We tried that. League of Nations. The UN. How has that worked out?

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.

I’m as atheist as they come and I see the tenets of Islam — as widely practiced throughout the world, and self-reported in a litany of surveys — to be clearly anti-woman, anti-freedom, anti-free speech, pro blasphemy-law, et al … and as a result, anti-American.

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.

Power over others can never be post-scarcity, and it's an incredible motivator.

In which case, any country willing to fund a military and start a war would dominate the world.

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".