1,412 karma · joined October 2, 2013
The opinions stated here are my own, not those of my employer.
Google SWE
Previously: Twitter SWE Google Fiber SWE Google SRE UCB EECS
How do you know this?
> All of this "AI is going to kill us" marketing
The "marketing" this week came from someone that had given up their stake in OAI (Coxon), so I'm more inclined to believe them.
> pull the ladder up
From what I've seen (e.g., Dario's latest essay), AI safety registration proposals aim to target frontier labs whose models have reached a certain threshold. It doesn't seem like trying to pull up any ladder, just making sure the ladder doesn't go too high too fast.
I didn't get it at first, either, and the Wikipedia article didn't do it for me. This explanation finally got me there: https://florian.github.io/reservoir-sampling/
First, bullshitting in meatspace isn't much of an advantage. To the extent that it is, there is always video calling. What matters for agent training is going to be the output from said bullshitting. You're not really maintaining any moat by going to the office.
And then on the other side, going to the office pretty much sucks. Unless you live close to the office, you're probably looking at least an hour on either side of your day commutting. Using that saved time to work extra at home is an obvious tactical error that I hope people aren't making. I sure as hell don't.
Totally agreed. My point is that their layman use of "ownership" is inaccurate at best, misleading at worst. I'm speaking to the words as they are commonly understood, not the legal definition.
You're probably right this this problem is not unique to Flock: other SaaS companies probably make the same misleading claims about ownership.
I'm one of the general public that is continually confused by their usage of the word "own". I can't imagine that their language update will make it any more clear.
If the data is on Flock's servers (it is) and accessible by Flock (it is) then it is Flock who owns the data, not the PDs. Sure, they can allow the PDs to have say over what is done with the data, but ultimately Flock has the ability to use the data however they'd like.
This is not hypothetical: Flock have used previously shared data with DHS [0] without the so-called owner's permission and use data for their AI training [1] without option to opt-out.
Their definition of ownership is further contradicted later in this post:
> we will now require case codes for all law enforcement searches by the end of the year.
To be clear, I think this is a good change, but if PDs "own" their data, then they should be able to decide whether or not they want to use this feature.
All in all, this is not ownership.
[0] - https://apnews.com/article/immigration-abortion-license-plat...
[1] - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2026/apr/...
But you can still do all those things from the book. Don't do the things you don't want to do.
I would be surprised if the second attack worked after what must be at least a couple layers of markdown/html conversion and spam filtering.
disclaimer: work at Google, but far removed from YouTube
The two largest projects are still under construction, so it might be too early to make any conclusions.
What is this referring to?
It's ok if you didn't like it, but you don't have to be mean about it.
I've wanted to build something like this for a long time, cool (and unsurprising, really) to see it's already done!
Swans is my number 30 by scrobbles but 4 by playtime, which makes total sense.
Consumer goods have dropped in price, which is good for offsetting inequality. I think the allegory still holds in some other areas (off the top of my head: healthcare spending and renting versus owning your primary residence).
That said, income inequality is probably the much bigger source of unfairness these days.
Seems like a strawman, I don't think anyone means this when talking about alignment.
More general goals, like avoiding paperclip maximization, are broadly applicable to humanity.