Who is "we"? When did all the Western countries coalesce into a single state? What am I missing?
4,183 karma · joined October 15, 2021
quiet.can8525@fastmail.com
Marketers: you do NOT have permission to add this email to any databases or use for any advertising and solicitation whatsoever - personal correspondence only
Irrelevant. HN is not the place to randomly inject flamewars about politics. It's explicitly against both the purpose and guidelines of HN.
Seems like you need to review the guidelines again, because they're pretty clear:
> Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.
That's speculative to the point of being conspiratorial.
> Are you honestly suggesting that the end user doesn't care about having to throw exponentially more money at stuffing RAM into their PC just to make the game all their friends are playing online function?
I'm extremely clearly not suggesting that. Don't make up things and pretend that other people said them. Engage honestly or not at all.
They never said anything remotely like that in their comment. Please engage in good faith, don't lie and pretend that others said things they didn't, and don't break the guidelines.
So this hypothetical is wrong.
Please don't lump HN users together to attack them. This is "sneering at the community", which is explicitly forbidden in the guidelines:
> Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
If you have a specific comment to respond to, then respond to it.
It's extremely reasonable to ask for a link, very easy to include one when making a claim, and attacking someone for asking for evidence is extremely anti-intellectual independent of the level of effort required.
(n.b. that doesn't excuse the hostile way that they asked for proof - "Let's all just believe this baseless assertion shall we")
Completely and totally irrelevant. Has nothing to do with the fact that you are not obligated to others' work.
> Legal != moral
Sure, you're right.
I guess the bigger issue is that the GP's post calls out Anthropic for following along in legal (but what we both believe to be immoral) mass copyright infringement that OpenAI started, while absolving them of the exact same thing. It's a shill account.
Uh, no. They're against open weights. They benefited from open source. Not the same thing.
And the terms of those open-source licenses explicitly allowed usage of the code for whatever. They're using it exactly as licensed.
> Why do they get to benefit, but not everyone else?
How many tens of billions of dollars have you invested into training models?
That's a good thing, not a bad thing. Nobody is entitled to give you something that they spent (tens of?) billions of dollars to develop for free.
> - can’t use claude to research AI
No problems there either.
> - train on everyone else’s IP and sell it back to them
Which the courts have yet to actually make a ruling on. It seems like it's perfectly legal.
> - 8 regulatory capture attempts and counting
A tweet is not a "regulatory capture attempt".
> - so controlling they are the only US company blacklisted by the US government
If you don't have a point, don't make anything up. There's precisely zero evidence to that backs up the claim that their "controlling" is why the DoW specifically (not the USG, and in fact the WHCOS specifically disagrees with their position) made an unlawful attempt to designate them as a "supply chain threat".
Is this an OpenAI propaganda account?
You're proudly proclaiming your lack of desire to learn or discuss on a forum meant for those things.
Go to Reddit. That's the right place for you.
Is there a similar process for removing not refusals, but misinformation?
Lots of people. Even on HN, which is wildly unrepresentative of the US as a whole, comments that "this site was AI-generated" are commonly upvoted to the top because people do care.
That includes me. If it's AI-generated, I don't care about it - if it wasn't worth their time to write, it's not worth my time to read. I can generate it myself.
> The content is what’s interesting
If it's generated, the odds of it being wrong are far higher, because people who publish generated content are far less likely to care about quality or correctness.
In the former case, isn't it just business as usual? (well, with a huge, nasty recession - but the economy at least continues on in some recognizable form)
It makes sense to me to focus on weird possible futures if we already have the "happy path" somewhat known and barely under control.
Which guideline did I violate?
> Leave the policing up to dang and the other mods.
The mods have been very clear that they expect the community to do some self-policing and not rely exclusively on them to do it for them.
> "Let's face it" "terrible writer" "other nonsense" "do Anthropic people actually talk like that" "Dario's engrams"
Be kind. Don't be snarky. Edit out swipes.
> I genuinely wonder if the people inside Anthropic actually communicate with each other like that. Has it been imprinted with Dario's engrams?
Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer.
Don't be curmudgeonly [...] don't be rigidly or generically negative.
Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work.
And as to the substance your comment has:
> Claude (in particular) is a terrible writer.
Frontier models (Claude in particular) are better writers than 90% of the population, even at default style. They're not great, but they're better than that of everyone I know who aren't ultra-educated white-collar workers.
Either your assertion that frontier models are "terrible" writers is false, or you're claiming that 90% of people are "terrible" at writing, which is rather condescending and elitist.
This should be at the top. This is the first remotely plausible theory that has any sort of evidence behind it.
This doesn't make sense. There were slow and broken things before AI. This was true even when the things were made by hundreds or thousands of engineers.
If an organization doesn't care about making their app or site fast or correct, then unless they have a truly ludicrous amount of free manpower (more than is available now with AI, because review and architecture are still bottlenecks), it probably won't happen.
AI doesn't change this. AI doesn't change the priorities of an organization, it just changes how quickly and cheaply they can build. And every org has a point in their priority queue where things are no longer worth it to spend resources on.
If Venmo didn't care about making their login page work well with Firefox (which, in my experience, they don't) before AI, why would you expect it to be better with AI?