radu_floricica

Why would the financing of the museum be the primary metric? The common good of Rodin reproductions is easily comparable with a moderate pinch in the museum's cash flow. Or it's closer to being incomparable, but from the other direction.

This would pack more of a punch if ASML wasn't the only go to example about Europe doing something in tech.

Could you please tell us more about your setup, project harness etc? not permissions (we all work with "Auto"), but what you actually told the agent it should/could do.

And how did you intervene? Does it have permissions to send emails, or it only created the draft?

This is a pretty interesting example and highly relevant, but details matter a lot if we want to use it as a lesson.

I wouldn't mind having verified accounts _as an alternative_. Not enforced over existing SM.

I'd like to know that when I'm reading a comment, it's written (or at least endorsed) by a human being. Currently that's.. debatable, and it's only going to be more so. Entities with cash and resources can focus on the topics relevant to them and drown the conversation. I'd like to at least know that the idiotic replies I'm getting are real human idiots, and not astroturfing in one shape or another.

In the context of climate change, it is the opinion that more industrialization and technologization cannot help solving the problem, except in a few narrow acceptable directions (solar, wind, hydrogen etc).

An example would be the european reaction to AC. It's a way of using technology to solve warming, its costs are perfectly acceptable, but it is still frown upon because... well, it's beyond the scope of a HN comment to diagnose why, but it's an example of technology being able to mitigate a problem but not being allowed to.

More like "it's not socially acceptable to discuss alternatives to orthodoxy", but yes.

I'm mostly stopped feeling autistic since adolescence, but climate change is one of those times. It's obviously real, and it's also obvious that shuffling chairs in developing countries is rounding to zero effect. We're converting to cleaner energy anyways because of pollution and better economics, so the push for decarbonization in itself is... what do you call a rounding error when it's already rounding to zero?

And it's FAR from hopeless. Again, global warming is obviously happening. But the amount of adapting and reacting to it is virtually nil. Installing AC. Tree cover in every city. Start serious discussions on what level of risk we want with geoengineering.

Because yes, there absolutely is an acceptable risk level with geoengineering. Planting trees is that. Carbon capture is also that. And better and more effective tech will definitely be available.

But we're in a social climate where I don't even dare write down examples of what those more effective methods would be, because if you're not luddite enough you're the enemy.

If you have an even modestly complex software: - start building an internal tool set with proper access rights - put an MCP over that tool set.

You're very likely to use those tools for other things as well, so keep the MCP as just a layer.

You can add a lot of things you wouldn't usually bother with, like telemetry, detailed logs, read only database access (you can even add a llm powered query builder on top) etc.

I'm in EU. But playing the blame game is not getting us anywhere. If you look at this legislation with the most favorable eyes, it still stopped short of making sure it's applicable, and refused to postpone its application as recently as a couple of months ago when it was already clear it'll be a shitshow. That's at EU level, not member countries.

And if you take off the rose tinted glasses, it's the same... um... what's the word? retardedness. when it comes to the environment. In order to... do what exactly? count carboard boxes better? they created yet another bureaucracy.

This is exactly what I meant by not giving a shit about other people's money (or time=money, in some instances).

Civility should be on both sides. The level of "not giving a shit" on the other side is much more than a couple of bad words.

1200 euro TVs don't really break after 5 years anymore, not in any meaningful numbers.

I've played with entrepreneurship most of my life - I know how "a solution looking for a problem" looks like. Any VC would laugh them out of the room.

Edit: don't get me wrong - there is a part of this that is almost free and only requires a bit of enforcement. That part is good, and it's exactly what governments should deal with. But anything that imposes direct or indirect costs should go through serious cost/benefit analysis.

> somewhere were we can't access it

By any metric imaginable, it's making the information more accessible, not less. First, it's taking a single copy of a 10k physical print and it's making it digital. Is it "locked"? Yes, by copyright laws, if you don't like that lobby to have them changed. But it's _closer_ to being widely available, not farther.

Plus having the info part of a LLM makes it immediately available to literally billions.

I happen to actually actively shop second hand bookstores, so I am potentially affected by this - as opposed to most people complaining because they don't like the idea. And I still absolutely support it.

Situation is quite different than the article paints it. The venture was risky to begin with, and already dead in 2026. Subsidies are gone, GE didn't produce their new 18MW turbine, interest rates and construction costs went up etc. State bureaucracy is its own quagmire, the fact that federal admin turned hostile was just the cherry on top.

Current deal is pretty clean and a win for both parties. US gov won't be drawn into a lengthy trial, RWE gets their money back, US gets a similar value investment, RWE gets a safer investment and a likely friendly government. US made some 40mil from the deal, or more likely 1-200 mil considering inflation; on the other hand RWE didn't lose their whole investment.

I was reading the post and thinking "wow, that's pretty clear for a smart man used to writing for other smart men. it'll be really difficult to misunderstand". I read the first couple of comments and stand corrected.

A much simpler summary:

- open models good.

- smart models _can_ be bad

- smart open models that can do biotech work are dangerous. worth the hassle of certification _if_ we can get everybody on board with minimalist certification.

- banning open models just in US is neither good or bad: is stupid.

I don't think it does? Nor is it trying to. LotR was something that happens once every 50 years - a movie series that's as good as the source material and holds quality over 3 movies (wonder why they didn't do the Hobbit as well). The Oddyssey is a summer blockbuster. A good one, I definitely recommend it, but far from memorable.

Umbrella term for political opponents? Those always exist. Some variation of "jew puppet", if I had to guess.

If it helps, the nazis themselves probably asked this very question before they started killing ... whatever the contemporary term for nazis was back than.

What this does is make it harder for new AI companies to train from scratch.

Anthropic should take it from its marketing/strategic budget. It just bought itself a 1.5B moat at exactly the time it can afford it.

> To prevent misuse, businesses relying on these exemptions must provide proof (e.g. documents or test results) and publish annual reports on what they have discarded.

I wonder if anybody is keeping track of everything a mid size business needs to take care of. Each particular report probably sounds like a reasonable request, but by now they're probably well into hundreds, and they're all outside the actual scope of the business (e.g. it may seem manageable for the bureaucrats designing them, because that's what they deal with all day, but not for a small organization doing... something else).

> Is supression of opinions and emotions even a good idea?

This is the wrong question. Having free opinions and emotions is such a basic and fundamental good, that any restriction needs to be a lot more than "a good idea" - it needs to clear a lot of thresholds. So it's more like "is it such an undoubtedly good idea with such a large margin that we want to take the risk?"

Ideally, one would have a meta cognitive toolkit and regularly retest their beliefs, sincerely. But that's unfortunately advanced technique, and likely requires the better part of a decade of reading and practicing.

What helps most is probably having more antibodies "in the water supply". If we spread concepts like this widely, they'll help once they're common ground for enough people. And I think it helps a lot that PG didn't give examples in his essay. Giving examples would immediately get him coded as x-ist, and color the article as political. And politics is the mind killer...

What you're doing now is taking a reasonable standard when going 200 on the autobahn and applying it everywhere else. And you don't see any problem with this because... think of the kids?

That's not how you optimize an important metric. At all. You look a how exactly those 60 people die and make targeted interventions with numbers backing them up. Otherwise best case you're doing security theatre, and most likely fuck things up with second order effects. Like things beeping all the time and distracting people - I already can't tell why my car is beeping at me.

Considering how skewed tax participation is, this would be a very one sided view. Just tax the top 49% more, no matter what's their current level of taxation, and redistribute to the lower 51%. It'll always make this criteria look like a success.

Problem is, this creates systemic effects. If you look longer term, a society that does this will end up a lot poorer than one that doesn't. Even for the bottom 51% you were optimizing. Because there are two variables to control: the redistribution, and the actual productivity. If you just focus on splitting wealth, you stop growing wealth.

Growing wealth on the other hand will make everybody richer, including the botton 51%. Simply participating in a richer economy has advantages. Plus the smaller redistribution percentage will actually end up bigger in absolute terms.

Could just be infra. I'm betting Anthropic is much better prepared.

On the other hand, when I visit Venice - which is as tight a city as can be, small streets with stone in every direction except the sky - they somehow manage to drop trees in stone squares.

Same shock, different direction, much nicer.

... carbon is fungible. Are they sure the effort of recycling them isn't higher than the effort of producing a single modern GPU?

Well, I'm pretty sure ambulances occasionally run people over. Doesn't mean we should ban them.

Orders of magnitude matter.

My biggest problem with Fable is that it includes health into its biology restrictions. Which means half the use I'd get from it ... doesn't exist.

I'm not as bitter as I could be. I'm actually quite surprised at the sanity of not avoiding the health topic completely - I think only OpenAI had a few months where ChatGPT was tip toeing in any health related conversation. Otherwise it's been almost completely ungated, and it saved and helped countless lives.

I really wish they'd find a way to ungate health and legitimate research topics.

For consumer products, definitely. Any unreasonably large charge (with a comfortable margin, like 10x) should be waived by default, unless the client specifically requested the limit be removed.

A steelman of this would be that they left OpenAI to build a company more focused on safety, and they're doing exactly that.