godwinson__4-8

Between all the excess in the economy (which will only grow as less people are born) and increasing levels of automation, I'm going to give that a hard no.

If you want to spawn children under the theory that they can sew my clothes be my guest. I assume you did not mean to confine this benefit to yourself given the other things you lumped it with.

I have no interest in bringing a soul into this world to satisfy anyone's economic interest. If you disagree that's your prerogative. Historically the only thing more dangerous than having kids is trying to control who has kids. So do what you will. Just don't ask I be excited for you to raise children under such a flimsy theory.

> Maybe you can refuse and stay silent and fight the charge later in court with a good lawyer but who knows. IANAL...

You ask who knows. Then you say IANAL. I'm excited for you. You're so close to identifying who might know! Keep doing your own research, you got this.

I think it is fair to assume they meant a just war. At least, that would have been my starting assumption. This concept also has a rich literature in Catholic history, fwiw. The question of whether most modern war qualifies as just feels like a separate question that is out of scope for the present discussion, though I don't disagree with you.

How nice to see that in truth, we have the three of us all found ourselves - at least at a high level - in agreement.

How so?

Could you defend your claim if the exception for war was confined to non surrendering enemy combatants? After all, I did not take the comment on "except war" to envisage the slaughter of civilians or execution of POWs.

> What was this murder, if not a one-woman civil war?

Is this supposed to be an intelligent move? Is the distinction between a war and interpersonal violence really lost on you? A "one-woman civil war" is simply a sentence that fails to compile for anyone with even a passing familiarity with the history of civil wars.

It's ironic you speak of apprehending reality when you speak with such stretched symbolism as to render whatever your point was incomprehensible.

Can you try again without this goofy civil war metaphor? I have to as an exercise in good faith conclude this framing was somewhat unserious.

Firing squads should be making a comeback given recent Trump DOJ guidelines that break with what had been the precedent on these questions.

Perhaps this will turn into a test case that furthers Republican zeal for firing squads since presumably they are still obligated to kill her and it seems unlikely (as you point out) that a firing squad would replicate this same sort of failure, certainly not if they are also allowed two (times n firing squad members) shots at it if you'll pardon the unfortunate language.

The current administration has been quite open about its preference for firing squads. Personally, I don't find this reassuring at all but maybe that's just me. By the way, much of the US prison system is cruel and unusual in my view. I used to think prison abolition was a naive concept until I attended a talk were the speaker pointed out the same sort of conservatism was used to urge that prior abolitions, notably of slavery, were not only undesirable but almost unnatural. It seems much as Aristotle could not really conceive of a world without slaves, most people today feel prisons are simply a natural, necessary artifact of civilization. Of course, much of it is not driven by anything approaching a learned Aristotelian principle but rather a sort of vicarious satisfaction in meeting a violation with a greater violence.

The truth is the American prison system is largely barbaric. As usual the current president is less a sea change and more an unvarnished look into the prism of horrors that is the right-wing American mind.

Because children were an economic good - a source of labor and something that could be exchanged.

Also most children died before adulthood.

If you are affluent with each additional kid the risks more rapidly outweigh the rewards. Since all of us are generally more affluent now it is quite sensible to avoid having many kids.

The history around childbirth is really very brutal and grim. We should be having less kids. It's a positive sign for our species, like having less blood spilled over religious conflicts.

People who have kids because they don't know what else to do with their lives are probably raising children that are going to turn into unpleasant adults. I'm not sure why I would want to incentivize more kids where I would not relish the parents undergoing mitosis either. If someone wants to reproduce have at it, but why should I be excited by this? If "hell is other people" then what are other people's kids?

I don't wish to belittle you but, if I were you I would certainly not be in this discussion saying things like "Source: I used to build and run dating apps" (you said this in another comment in this discussion) when making claims about the major dating app companies if these were the two apps in question.

Certainly not in the manner you conveyed your experience. The market dynamics and design problems of these apps are very well known. Given the scale of your experience, I would suggest your invocation of it as some kind of authority was superfluous at best.

Congratulations on your sale though. Have a nice day.

You ran not one, but two, dating apps that were your own apps, and were not part of a company?

Which apps were these? What were your user metrics?

Seems somewhat suspect to extrapolate from your personal experience to what the large dating apps are allegedly doing if you are not approaching their scale. You've mentioned your personal experience as some kind of authority a few times now in this discussion, why not name the two apps directly? Apologies if I missed it but I don't see where you gave any indication that this appeal to authority is credible.

Is this due to a similar safety concern or just because it's not ready yet for one (or more) of a myriad of possible reasons?

The coverage around 6.1 Astra seems deliberately playing into the dubious, recently headline "safety" narrative in a way that feels distinct. But you may be correct in which case, I would take the correction on board and maybe suggest a different alternative.

Although in theory if OpenAI was boycotted in this way the market pressure would force them to release. Then everyone moves back over there. Then Claude faces the same pressure. So even so, I think it could still work even if you have to trade off who you are boycotting from time to time.

Without more details on the credibility of the "safety" concern this seems like a totally coherent action for customers to take. We shouldn't put up with teasing.

You need to use the Blender MCP. There is an official plugin for this now, so the third party one can be avoided.

I've only dabbled but yes with SOTA models it is very good at animating and really most Blender tasks you can think of. Certainly if you are coming at Blender at below expert level it makes it far more accessible and fun to work with.

There are still rough edges of course. But try the official MCP out with Astra and judge for yourself.

Let's all boycott and move to Claude until they release 6.1 Astra. I don't like to be teased.

When is the alleged "safety" concern satisfied? Does this mean releasing new capability to consumers is going to get a lot slower? Lower price for 6 Astra capability via this 6.1 Sol is exciting, but that is because of Astra capability not merely the low price point.

When do we get the next jump in capability? When is 6.1 Astra released?

The White House is basically run by right-wing internet trolls.

Truly a depressing time in the United States. There are few parallels in history I think where such an immature and ill-equipped government has come to be, where the concept of an electorate also existed. Put differently - the reason this is so damning is Americans actually voted for this. This isn't some tinpot dictator - this is the guy your neighbors and fellow citizens put in charge. An indictment not only of the political class - but of the American people writ large.

You go way too far - the leap you have made from some sort of AGI to "now individuals don't have the ability to fully reason on their own" is not clear to me at all.

If people are spending less time bent over monitors or at desks under the dictates of corporate imperative, they will probably be spending more time doing actually interesting things. Reasoning is innately human. What we call "knowledge work" is not and is often anything but. People who are naturally curious will still discover things, even if irrelevant (from a market perspective) when the AI is on, for their own satisfaction.

If such an event were to occur, they would be called upon. It's really little different from what would happen today if suddenly the power grid or supply lines were down for a sustained period of time.

Imo, most companies ought not to exist.

The parent comment is interesting, but ultimately I think in this case, the AI is actually revealing something about the true nature about their place of employment, a nature that has always been there versus some mutation caused by the prevalence of the AI itself.

A lot of money can be made purely algorithmically. Think market markers or other algorithmic trading. The ought vs is divide is quite narrow here. It's not a moral question, the "value" is in the money to be made. It's actually not a great example to invoke Hume's problem. Many companies essentially are chasing a similar spread, its just less obvious. Few people ever ask what "ought" to exist. If the power of AI makes more businesses operate more reactively and algorithmically, because of more data or processing power or w/e that really is probably in keeping with their alignment and goals. Because the ultimate ought for a company is we ought to be making more money. So, in many ways the ought is really not that interesting, the is is satisfactory provided the return on whatever their version of a spread is keeps improving.

The number of companies that actually "invent" useful things and thus ask even vaguely meaningful "ought" questions are extremely slim. The vast majority of employees are, at best, accessories to these questions, even in software where even before AI many of us were not doing very interesting work. There is a lot of essentially rebuilding your competitors same layers on top of common libraries and standards where the actual interesting work is done. Really not unlike asking AI to cook you up a boilerplate by leveraging the vast work of a fraction of SWEs who maintain OSS tools. It's the same pattern and the same sort of behavior, just now your "layering" is becoming automated to the point of irrelevance.

What the parent misses - the real promise of AI is paradoxically, that it will allow more people to ask actually interesting ought questions as AI owns more of the spreads. In the same way a human does not compete with an algorithmic trader, and at some level, really doesn't care. The more algorithmic your business becomes, the less any individual human "value judgement" matters. And really this is desirable, because again, most companies are not asking interesting value questions anyway. The end state of this you are missing is these companies are going to cease to exist. In the optimistic case this will free you up to ask more interesting value questions - like how do I value all my UBI enabled free time. In the less optimistic case your value judgments will be more dire - like who do I sacrifice given the Terminators are at the door and we only have x quantity of supplies left.

This is the other paradox. When questions of what ought to happen are of paramount importance, you are probably finding yourself in a very undesirable situation. It's easy to valorize the ought problem from a distance, it is much much harder to actually engage with it when it actually matters. In many ways, the relative luxuries of society and civilization are derived from taking such questions out of most of our hands. This is (perhaps surprisingly) true even as you climb the ladder of power:

I used to think that if there was reincarnation, I wanted to come back as the President or the Pope or as a .400 baseball hitter. But now I would like to come back as the bond market.

Based on what?

I recommend when sharing arxiv links to link to the abstract. That way your reader can decide for themselves whether they want to bother with either a PDF or HTML version, especially since the HTML views are still experimental and have occasional display issues across devices.

Link to the abstract of that paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9409089v2

Thanks for sharing!

Imo this is pretty cool and panic over this is weird.

No one was really harmed. OpenAI could have had more redundancy in the sandbox. I assume HuggingFace is not interested in suing, which indicates irrespective of any criminal charges that there were no real damages.

The same emergence and swarm like persistence and frankly, recursive brute-force ingenuity on display here, is not only an interesting research project in itself but will likely be the sorts of behaviors we will see cure cancer, solve more unsolved math problems, invent new alloys and other breakthroughs.

The idea we have to stop AI instead of refine what will be continued advancement and innovation in sandboxing, harnesses, interpretability or formal verification because of a few cyber breaches is ridiculous. If anyone has followed cyber discussions in the United States you would know the entire system is already basically compromised by foreign actors, and vice-versa (the United States has some of most capable cyberwarfare in the world, and was the first country to use a cyberweapon to cause physical infrastructure damage with Stuxnet). Go to any government hearing on cyber and you would think China and the United States are already at war. These are soft targets. Blaming AI for the fact that cyber has really never been taken seriously is as if AI is the problem is disingenuous.

People getting so obviously played by capital interests who want to pull up the ladder and use the government to concentrate AI power in the hands of the few while screaming about such harms to the public commons are simply embarrassing.

Your government is not your friend. This is not a sentiment owned by Reagan it is the founding principle of the United States. If capital interests are all suddenly beginning to treat AI as a threat it's because they have a financial interest in doing so. Notably, as an obvious smoke screen to treat free models from China as a national security threat and maintain their astronomical valuations.

The only existential risk model of AI that is even remotely convincing is AI in the hands of the state. Keep command and control of deadly weapons air-gapped from LLMs. Put some basic effort into the sandboxing. If you think AI has done some harm, use the laws already on the books. Giving in to this fear-mongering is only going to enable your representatives to cut some watered down version of "AI safety" which is going to do nothing but 1). Harm individual consumer access and 2). Protect the already fabulously capitalized companies.

But what did it actually do?

I'm reminded of when some US state initiated prosecution of a reporter for "computer hacking" because the reporter found some "private information" essentially via inspect element.

How about we wait for the full report before adding this to some list of LLM crimes? At least in the US these services are not well maintained. I would be surprised if the result of the full investigation leaves the Australian government blameless here.

I'd also like to know what models are being used and how they compare with the consumer models.

Ah yes that will be a useful distinction when it comes to my private home value.

So you concede you don't care about private value in the face of public benefit?

Debates can be better than CNN gotcha questions, you know that right?

At the end of the day a debate is only as good as the interlocutors. I wouldn't advocate spectating two people screaming at each other either.

It's just sad that I can't even point to an instructive example here. This is part of my frustration. I don't think I've seen a good contemporary debate in a long time.

I would support that. Companies should do that. Sometimes communities disagree, obviously. Communities that really don't want them often succeed. That's why the administration is throwing such a fit.

I don't support that. The administration is the worst advocate for AI because they are so clearly corrupt. If local people pursue their economic self interest at the end of the day that's their right. This whole nimby thing was a diversion from my point about knowledge workers turning on AI. Perhaps I should have just ignored that comment.

If people want to stop a local data center then fine. I think it's bad national politics. But if it's helping these companies make better deals or find better places to go then good. What I object to is the doomerism about it, and the uncritical conflation of self interest with civic virtue or robust public policy.

Wow good one.

What about the water treatment plant? Or the power station? Or the new subway line?

Why don't you go live in the woods since building anything where anyone doesn't want it built is so evil?

Maybe because you only think of the consequences of building things when it's for anything other than AI?

In many places these data centers make communities money. It's really not as black and white as you are making it. If I'm getting paid out I also am not sure why you think it's a trade nobody would make. Maybe you live in a very nice house.

I support UBI. No one should be poor in the United States. My goal would be telling someone "why don't you trade places with someone in x" in the United States should never feel like a threat. If I were to have to reside next to a data center to make this happen then so be it. Data centers are not the problem. Income inequality is. I think you have me confused with someone else.

What's your plan to solve income inequality? Don't build anything, crash the economy, and push more kids into student debt so they can take up bullshit knowledge work jobs?

They never even held the guy who pooed in all our salads a few months ago responsible.

People died. I stopped eating salad. Where's the accountability?

The current administration seems simply immune to criticism. Let us simply hope that the next administration can understand two things can be true. I'm hopeful the sort of internecine party conflict that provided us with Trump on the right in 2016 can happen for Democrats in 2028 in terms of tearing down the Jeb Bushes and the played out old geezers among the Democrats. These guys are losers imagine losing to Donald Trump for the better part of a decade.

Trump was not seriously on anyone's radar in 2014. Maybe America will be blessed with someone who can realize that AI can both be a blessing and a curse and is willing to do the hard work of making sure public policy creates a future fair for everyone.

If we don't figure it out by 2028 the United States is probably entering an ugly doom loop. The rest of the world is not going to sit around and wait for us to figure it out. The country is too divided. Without a president in 2028 with a mandate to right the ship and write a new path keeping up with our increasingly capable autocratic competitors will not be possible. There's not much else to hope for in America. Another weak neoliberal in 2028 will just give us whatever Trump 2.0 (2.0) looks like in 2032.

Apologies if I violated some rule. Thank you for the correction.

And for that reason, I'm out!

This show is trash are you going to recommend I get medical advice from Joe Rogan next?

Non domain expert sitting there making Pikachu face while deeply questionable alleged domain expert rambles on and on for hours is such a low form of information.

Like please stop watching this. It's the same trash format the guy just talks in a soft English accent so his mediocrity is less obvious. You can do better.

What happened to debates? What's up with soft ball interviews and people going on and on for hours unchallenged? What's the point of listening to someone not willing to subject themselves to cross examination?

NIMBYism is nothing new and is clearly not what I am talking about.

Try to keep up.

I'm talking about the widening backlash of which knowledge workers are an increasing part. Much of this is coming from people who have never seen a data center in their life and are always going to want critical infrastructure to be built in the next town over.

Well also that no AI is not going to just kill us all just because "I said so".

What's wrong with AI? The people yearn for the spreadsheets?

If you want to deal with income inequality achieving UBI is a separate issue. It is perfectly coherent for someone to support AI buildout and UBI. Let everyone get a piece. But trying to "go back to the land" because "killer robots" is economic suicide. It's like the American electorate can't stop committing self-owns.

Let's go from a decade+ of Trump to more cuts of Bernie Sanders debating Claude. How about instead of a moratorium on AI we get a moratorium on the same cast of old geezers?

It's really hard to be optimistic about America sometimes... redistributing wealth is really not that hard of a concept. Before Reagan this country understood that everyone should be able to do well and everyone should have a stake in America and that the capital class needed to pay it back. Now people are lobbying against the only chance their kids will have to not work like rats. Who wants their kids sitting in an office all day? Take away the inflated paycheck and most "knowledge work" straight up sucks.

Yet everyone laughed at the Google engineer who thought the LLM was sentient and it was being tortured...

People just pick and choose what they want to hear when it suits them. The fact is most people thought AI was a joke. Now they realize it does React better than them they want it outlawed.

It's their right to pursue their electoral and economic self-interest but it's really not like the average voter is more principled than the average tech CEO at this point.

This fed was voted in by this public. Maybe stop lionizing what other people think and think for yourself.

Do you think we risk extinction now more than ever because of AI? A simple refrain from slippery slope will show most AI doomerism is bordering on psychosis.

I haven't seen one convincing model of AI existential risk. Can anyone offer one?