No you just get watch listed and deported for attending a free Palestine demonstration.
842 karma · joined November 29, 2020
No, just stop having pets.
I don't think you're a crazy vegan, and I'm not outraged. But your proposal is ridicules.
1 - https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10...
2 - https://influencemap.org/briefing/Carbon-Majors-2024-Data- Update-35466
3 - https://www.theenergymix.com/17-of-worlds-20-biggest-carbon-...
4 - https://www.rinnovabili.net/environment/pollution/world-co2-...
- people who like writing code for codes sake
- people who like writing code to build things
In the past, these folks have lived more or less in harmony unified under the common interest of applied maths, engineering and architecture that is necessary to write things that require a lot of vode. Aside for a few classic and very public spats.
Now that community is fractured because llms are increasingly making writing code irrelevant. If that weren't true, we wouldn't be having this convo at all.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to want to cultivate spaces that preserve that craft, but wish they wouldn't be so obnoxious about it. I imagine that a good handful of these folks in the "no llm ever camp" collectively rolled their eyes at vegans and animal rights advocates at some point, and are now feeling being on the unpopular side of progress.
Personally I think it's a cool prospect to have Trappist Monk-like communities producing hand crafted code. It will probably be really good and sturdy. We'll look at it in 10 years and say, "damn they really don't make it like that anymore!"
Having said that, consider taking more care when authoring articles with the help of llms.
There's a lot of nonsense in this piece that distracts from the overall point you're trying to make. Things such as
- "the output price is frozen at the anchor
- " This post is that gap collapsing to zero and the discovery that the real fight was never about price."
- "Strip away everything and the economics reduce to a single line"
- "Feed that into the equation and unit cost is a hyperbola in utilization"
- "the plot twist"
- "Two data points deserve a hard stare."
- "Caveat, because the numbers deserve it."
- "Sizing the prize: what does one box actually hold?"
And so on..
Nobody likes this, and it diminishes your credibility as an author. Llms output stuff like this because they are confabulating prose between facts. It spaces out arguments and adds text, but it's just meaningless nonsense that distracts from the overall point.
It sounds like you did a real thing here and that you might have some interesting results to share. If you presented them clearly in your own voice, more people will be interested.
We only have a limited sample size of economic data.
No, we don't. It's quite good, but it's nowhere near perfect. For example, you can see: https://genai-showdown.specr.net/ or others that highlight how far from perfection we still are.
> and it hasn't really changed the nature of human expression.
It sure has changed our discourse. Look at hackernews, where people just can't help themselves to engage in ragebait and flamewar comment threads about llm generated accusations. We've got half the people convinced that looking at ai content is like consuming food.
I'd venture a guess that it's too early to determine how this technology will change expression. A good analog would be photography, which caused a similar meltdown in the arts at the time.
> I don't see my friends getting wildly creative.
Maybe you don't have creative (enough) friends.
The majority of top threads on hn on any given days are legit flame wars and llm accusation mud slinging.
But you cant say Dario Amodei is an effective altruist. Incredible.
Posted by the account, BurningFrog. You can't make this shit up.
Forgive me if I do not take "making sunsets" as a credible source of information.
There's a body of research that covers existential risks associated with sai and srm:
- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00163...
- https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/climate/articles/10.338...
- https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017EF00...
Further from an actual credible source:
https://www.unep.org/resources/report/Solar-Radiation-Modifi...
> While there is a growing body of literature and advanced modelling on the topic, which has been developing for many years, there is very little evidence or research on the risks and impacts of SRM. The report outlines these limitations in the evidence base. UNEP is concerned that while the scientific literature shows that SRM, and stratospheric aerosol injection specifically, can cool the globe, there is a dearth of data on the risks and impacts. For technologies that can alter the chemistry of the stratosphere, the world needs much more information to support decision-making.
No, it is not "safe" by any measure.
You're frustrated because you think you understand a thing that you have only a tenuous grasp on, from the deep expertise of a single area that is not transferable to whole of the problem. You then transfer that frustration on to "people like me" whom you seem to think are doing something bad. But really, the commentary is that the claims you put forward are insubstantial and lack credibility.
The sum total of what you've put forward here and in other threads amount to arguments of authority based on the musings of a handful of capitalists. Then cite a body of thoughts from a group of transhumanists who think they are smart enough to reinvent areas philosophy without engaging in the body of work that predates the movement by 2000+ years.
Folks who have been involved with lesswrong have made good advancements in the domain of machine learning, and that's where it stops. They're not some collection of prescient macroeconomic and geopolitical savants. They're also wrong about as much as they are right (cryonics), and produce plenty of whiffs (sbf, zizians). You're suggesting that we listen to a broken clock because it's been right once.
Your dismissal of climate (read: climate breakdown) as "something less severe" is truly demonstrative of the cognitive bias that rips through these groups. You're so frustrated that people like me won't listen to the "experts" in one breath, and in the next diminish the 50 years of actual Hard Science that we have that shows how severe the future of climate breakdown will be. Go read the latest ipcc report, the most conservative scientific organization on earth is sounding the alarm bells.
Now we get back to this openai incident. We're watching Edison electrocute Topsy on Coney Island. There's a group of people saying, "this is obviously a publicity stunt". And there's a group of people saying, "the elephant is actually dying obviously it's real."
The fact of the matter is that, yes electricity is powerful, but Edison is electrocuting the elephant. At that moment, there is no body of evidence that shows with any certainty how electricity is going impact society. And there's certainly no compelling arguments that only Edison should be able to decide how to use it. He's electrocuting a fucking elephant.
As if to say, look at all these animals with these instinctual reactions to a thing that only my group understands and comprehends.
You have zero evidence of what the future might entail as it relates to the dangers of ai. Zero. Forgive the rest of us unwashed for not trusting the whims of the anxious.
> climate change which is less severe
Is really the icing on the cake. Demonstrative of how incorrect your priorities are.
The most straightforward thing to do that would have saved you in 2008, 2000 (and even 1929 to some extent), is to limit debt exposure and have enough cash sitting around so you don't have to sell your positions.
People who held (and invested more during the low points) did just fine. The people who got hurt the most were in a position where they had to sell (their 401k, their house etc) for a loss.
When a crash happens, it's a buyers market. In some ways it's a transfer of wealth to the top.
The problem is, timing the crash is impossible. Inflation chews into your cash portfolio, that could've been used to grow wealth.
Edit
There are of course more complex financial instruments. And they're interesting, but essentially amount to gambling. Holding short positions on sectors/companies is a zero sum game. As a retailer, you're betting against firms that have a lot of money and insider knowledge. Even if the thesis is correct, it has to be correct at the right moment.
The genie is already out of the bottle and now a bunch of people who helped release it think that the collective powers of the world are just going to put it back in.
How far are the saftyists willing to go? Bombing data centers? Starting wars? Embargos?
It's a terrible dilemma to be in. If the threats are real, it gives all the more incentive for some actor to race and try to grab it first. If not, then any punishment isn't proportional. Explain to a nations citizens under a 10 year embargo, "sorry about your quality of life, we all just got a little spooked by science fiction for a second."
Folks try to reach for bad analogies: nuclear bombs and biological weapons. But conveniently omit that by the time the regulations took place for these things we had unequivocal proof of their destruction, scope and scale.
So, what then? We're supposed to collectively stop innovating and put the keys to the kingdom in the hands of a few capitalists, a corrupt is administration and the ccp?
I reject that these agreements should take place, on the grounds that the proposal is delusional and not founded in reality.
It seems like most people can still understand, "I didn't care for it." Even if sometimes even that's too much to bear.
But I've observed that the expansion into, "I noticed some problems, and I'll articulate them" seems to get bluntly polarized into something much less generous.
"I'd like to see you do better" is a run of the mill response to criticism. Which overall demonstrates a lack of maturity / confidence in ones own taste.
For the record, I loved the movie. I thought some parts were odd. I found this piece interesting.
"...the load bearing seam is the self referential spin. Superstition compounds throughout your entire pipeline."
As I read more of his unhinged posts and some of the more ridiculous claims from anthropic, it's become clear to me that Dario thinks he can leverage American hegemony to regulate his company into a monopoly.
He has an ethics vaguely influenced by effective altruism, and he appears to think that his ethical framework entitles him to make decisions on the behalf of humanity, for all of humanity.
Literally a bond villain.
Recently, I discovered that if you berate Claude, it will refuse to continue to work. At some point it will "end the conversation" meaning you can't use anything within the context and have to start a new one .
I was amazed by it. Turns out:
https://www.anthropic.com/research/end-subset-conversations
https://www.anthropic.com/research/exploring-model-welfare
> We remain highly uncertain about the potential moral status of Claude and other LLMs, now or in the future. However, we take the issue seriously, and alongside our research program we’re working to identify and implement low-cost interventions to mitigate risks to model welfare, in case such welfare is possible.
These people are zealots. And I find it to be the most dangerous combination: popular ideologues with a ton of money.
It really lends flavor to this excerpt from the less than reputable nypost:
https://nypost.com/2026/06/25/business/anthropics-weirdo-ceo...
> Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei has been replaced by his co-founder Tom Brown at high-stakes White House meetings – where the artificial-intelligence giant’s outspoken boss was reportedly “being a weirdo,” according to a report.
> Amodei and other top Anthropic workers raced to Washington after the US government slapped the AI giant’s new “Mythos” and “Fable” bots with strict foreign export controls – but Amodei was difficult to talk to and didn’t listen to officials’ concerns, Wired reported.
> “Tom Brown is not being a weirdo like Dario and can actually engage,” one person familiar with the calls told the outlet.
Anthropic is dangerous.
I use flux2.dev on my 5090 with a prompt upsampler (that I host on my 3080ti, it's been so long since I looked at it, its either some qwen or Mistral model). I use the upsampler to produce json structure based on this prompting guide: https://docs.bfl.ml/guides/prompting_guide_flux2
For being able to run on my 5090, it produces incredibly consistent and stable results that work for my use case so well, I find myself reaching for it over proprietary models.
I'm always interested to see objective comparisons though. It's clear from yours that flux lags. But the fact that I can use it locally over closed source sota models is very compelling (to me).
You've convinced me to checkout ideogram4 though!
"It's not a marketing stunt" is just delusion trying to appear measured and safe.
Would you open source a nuclear bomb???
A couple of cool and interesting projects maintained by modern day trappist monks. A couple of insular communities that are intolerant to views that don't align with their own.
Majority of the world will move on and acquiesce to the new ways of working, which is writing code primarily through the use of llms.
There will be plenty of witch hunts and public stonings along the way.