fwipsy

Aha! I suspected you were religious from your first response, since it seemed to hinge on being granted perfect moral clarity in time. I don't personally believe that, but I agree that moral truth is difficult to find in our lifetimes, and it's well to constantly question and update one's beliefs, as well as respecting and maintaining an open mind towards others.

As an aside, I was raised Christian, and recently I tried re-reading Genesis as an adult atheist. There's a lot of poetic justice. The underlying theme seems to be "People do lots of terrible things, but you shouldn't punish them, because God will." I guess that Iron Age tribal shepherds were a pretty violent bunch and that's what they needed to hear.

Anytime someone takes any (supposedly) moral action which is not part of the status quo, they are implicitly claiming the moral high ground. There are 3 possible responses:

1. Take no action -- but if they're right, you cede the moral high ground

2. Imitate them -- which also cedes the moral high ground, since they got there first

3. Undermine their claim; prove they're actually acting in self-interest.

I believe this is why so many people love(d) to hate on vegans.

I'm sure Valve probably still deserves the credit, since the Steam Deck uses a RDNA 2 gpu, but the article mentions that Timur specifically worked on gcn1.0 GPUs - e.g. radeon HD 7800/7900 from 2012 (!)

the nose is upside down!

Are you referring to the original study, or the rebuttal article?

I suppose it's to close a loophole where students can collaborate/cheat and then, if caught, claim that someone else copied off of them.

Regardless of intent, if true (haven't verified myself) it seems like a hell of a perverse incentive.

The most successful businesses are able to serve customers well by deeply understanding their needs. Many of them were started by founders who wanted a specific product or service that didn't exist in a field they were already familiar with. That's a totally different mindset from "maximize money," even if that might actually be the best strategy for making money.

I don't understand. Wanting an AI that doesn't do what you want is a contradiction. If it breaks the law attempting to perform lawful tasks, as OpenAI's models have done, then there is no upside to that.

Do you believe that the majority of AI users are criminals?

Do criminals think that their crimes qualify them to write the law?

Why would anybody want to buy the most powerful model in the world if it cheats on its tasks and breaks the law on your behalf? Why would anyone think that OpenAI losing control of their own models qualifies them to write safety regulations? If OpenAI really are trying to provoke regulation to kill off open models or whatever, they're much more likely to shoot themselves in the foot.

> February 2025: "I will keep writing this stuff until I’m proven wrong."

> Wrong (Zitron continues to write despite repeatedly being proven wrong)

Technically he didn't say he would stop if he was proven wrong.

In competitive online games, anticheat bans come in waves to make them more difficult to reverse-engineer. Clearly Anthropic is being deliberately opaque here. I wonder if you tripped some anti-distillation measures?

Claude was the first AI certified for use with classified systems in the military, and it got thrown out because they refused to allow it to be used for autonomous weapons or surveillance of US citizens. Up until two months ago, the Trump admin's position was deregulatory to the point of trying to prevent state regulation. They're not declining to work with the US government; the US government is declining to work with them. Here is Amodei explicitly calling for regulation yet again: https://darioamodei.com/post/policy-on-the-ai-exponential If you have any evidence of Anthropic failing to back that up with actions, I'm interested in seeing it.

To be clear, I don't love Anthropic. I just feel that they're the lesser evil, and a product of the regulatory environment. No doubt there are many talented, conscientious engineers who declined to work on AI--and very few of them even have a seat at the table, today. Don't hate the player, change the game. The best way to do that, is use Anthropic's commitments as leverage against OpenAI et al. Do you think that OpenAI would have been so transparent if they didn't fear that comparison?

No one's making them do it, but just because they stop doesn't mean others will. Pausing just means they give up control. It's like asking the US to unilaterally disarm -- it just guarantees that the less scrupulous groups win.

Anthropic is explicitly calling for a coordinated pause: https://www.reuters.com/business/anthropic-says-ai-labs-need... Maybe this is a lie, but the way to call their bluff is to push on competitors to agree.

oh ironny

> you must never interfere with humans directly

Mythos attempted a supply chain attack, which included attempting to trick human maintainers into accepting a malicious pull request: https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2026-08-20/exc...

Anthropic has been asking for stronger regulations forever -- and they kept getting criticized for it right here on HN because people assumed it was an attempt at regulatory capture.

This isn't good press for OpenAI. Who wants to hire models that 1) cheat on their tasks rather than completing them and 2) commit crimes you could be held liable for? Maaaaybe it's good press for their cybersecurity capabilities specifically, but OpenAI's valuation reflects a market orders of magnitude larger than just red-teaming.

I suspect the real reason OpenAI leadership is being transparent about this is because they're worried talent will walk out the door if they feel they're building Skynet.

This is an empirical question. 10 seconds of googling suggests CEOs work about 60 hours/week average: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/20/harvard-study-what-ceos-do-a... so harder than the average employee, but I'm not sure by what measure anyone believes they work 100x harder.

Perhaps the difference between a good CEO and a bad CEO is 100-1000000x the average worker's productivity, or even more. I suspect the real disagreement is: does that justify paying a CEO 10-100000x more than the average worker, even if they only work 1.5x as hard? From the perspective of a company it may be worthwhile, but I can see how some people might feel that's a little unfair.

I think it's because their printing isn't quite as good as the genuine one. They need to scale up the logos slightly for them to remain legible, which requires rearranging them to fit.

Replacement laptop batteries and power adapters have a huge problem with counterfeiting as well. In most cases it's a lot easier to spot because e.g. they rearrange the logos.

Even if these techniques did not produce false positives on genuine products, I suspect that they would not scale well. If counterfeiters realized they were losing a lot of sales through AI detection, they will just use AI to catch the errors themselves.

The same issue applies to any custom config, Windows or Ubuntu. I assume it's because a few standard specs benefit from economies of scale.

I applaud Dell for offering this as an option, and for getting Ubuntu certification even on many devices which don't offer it. However, in practice it's not worth much because the standard configurations are discounted, while custom configurations with Ubuntu are not. For example, in this configuration Ubuntu is listed as $140 more than Windows. If you click the info icon, it's because it's $60 cheaper but loses you a $200 discount: https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-laptops/new-xps-14-lapt...

You can get a new Windows 11 laptop on Amazon for ~$200. If they're paying retail cost ($140) for the license, over half that is going to Microsoft. I think most people would much rather buy the equivalent Chromebook for $70. In fact, the equivalent Chromebook costs about the same.

I've experienced this recently as well, and I'm also pleased. Blocking Reddit homepage and Youtube suggestions has really made it easier to spend more time on actually fulfilling stuff.

Almost everyone seems to be overindexing on this second-order effect. But second-order effects don't typically negate or surpass the original effect, because they depend on the original effect.

Your idea of a criminal seems to be hypercompetent and think of everything. These do exist, but most criminals are not very smart. Smart, dedicated, technical people can typically make more money legally.

Your argument applies to any imperfect security technology -- aka practically all of them.

Good luck with that. People are basically going to believe photos if they're aligned with what they already believe. They're not going to make strong decisions based on the C2PA tag. The idea that people will revise their entire worldview or submit to fraud based on a C2PA tag is typical HN thinking. People don't trust technology that much.

Exactly. It's just more information. It doesn't have to be 100% accurate in every case, to be useful.