That was my first thought as well. I wonder if they decided to pivot away from trying to compete and now are positioning themselves as the "responsible ones."
"Our AI is useless not because we're a dysfunctional corporate behemoth that slowly kills every product it touches. No, no. Our AI is useless because making useful AI is evil, and we're not evil."
An account created 10 minutes ago is theorizing about the "deep state"... very 2016 of you.
Why would billionaires need a secret "deep state"? They can just openly talk about what they're doing with impunity. They own the publicly visible government and everyone knows it. Nothing "deep" about it.
Deep here is similar to “deep web”, ie, there is depth to the institutions beyond their apparent surface layers. The elites need a deep state because organizations are made of people — and the administrators of the fora where they give those speeches is a great example of people in the deep state.
Good analogy. I was being a bit knee-jerk in my response. Of course there must be layers to the network of elites that we can't see.
My frustration with comments like the one I responded to is from seeing ones like it for over a decade now... brand new account, first and only comment is theorizing about conspiracies. Contributing to an environment of paranoia-posting about whose wife is or isn't a CIA asset, instead of talking about the actual article - which is glaringly public information that's scary enough WITHOUT also talking about the "deep state."
I don't care if the Anthropic CEO's wife is an intelligence asset or a garden-variety money chaser and I think it's useless and annoying to talk about. Especially on a technology forum. When a 10-minute-old account does it, it screams astroturfing. But maybe I'm just jaded.
I don't believe I've ever heard Amodei "openly talk" about his wife being an Epstein person. I think the CIA/Mossad/who knows what else connections that a lot of these companies have is generally swept under the rug.
Why the scorn if you fail to understand a simple implication? The thesis (unproven of course) is that certain agencies use women to monitor certain billionaires.
Billionaires do not need the deep state? Palantir was founded partly by In-Q-Tel and "libertarian" Thiel depends on government money. Similarly, most of Anthropic and OpenAI's actual income will come from surveillance.
I'm keeping my ps4 as long as the hardware still runs because at least I can still buy discs for it. I have a nice collection of high-replay-value single player games. I know discs are just physical licenses at this point in time, not actual software on disc like the old school days.
But even with all this nonsense from Sony I don't think they'll cross the rubicon of terminating licenses that come on physical discs for their older consoles. If they do, I hear you can jailbreak ps4s :)
> I know discs are just physical licenses at this point in time, not actual software on disc like the old school days.
I don't understand why people keep repeating this meme when emulation exists, and discs remain the easiest legal format to grab data for emulators to play. You may need an exploit to get game data off a digital-only console.
Using an unsustainable amount of water to grow cattle feed and romaine lettuce in one of the most arid places on Earth is a questionable choice. It seems like the choice will be made for us, soon.
Maybe a dumb question, but isn't the idea that the efficiency of the models will improve with time, such that you won't be burning hundreds of dollars of tokens for most queries?
Fable is great, but Opus can handle most coding tasks for a fraction of the cost, and Sonnet is good enough for average questions or word processing tasks.
Bandcamp rules. I do still subscribe to Apple Music for cheap streaming, but for albums I really like, I'll spend the $8 on bandcamp for the high quality album download. Better support for the artist, and protection against license-pulling BS like this.
“A survey from YouGov found that Americans in the highest income category were by far the most supportive of defunding the police.”
“By far” means “10% more” in the actual graph the author cites, which comes from an online poll that had 1500 respondents. I’m no statistician but that seems like a small difference and small sample size to be the key piece of “data” here.
This article follows most tropes of behavioral science blog articles: broad moral statements taking a vaguely contrarian stance, analogies comparing humans to random animals (gazelles?), and “gotcha” survey data with questionable sample sizes. I find it difficult to take it seriously.
It's a pretty typical result from social science. 1500 respondents is a fairly large sample size--I've seen papers where you're talking closer to ~50.
Going from 22% to 32% is a 10 percentage point difference, but a 46% increase. I agree that the conclusion at the end is flimsy, and there are undoubtedly confounding factors--but the statistics are pretty well in line with what you'd expect in social sciences.
Yeah, but think about the error bars there. You’re looking at an MoE of around 3% for the entire sample, and more for these subgroups. The real difference could be just a couple percentage points and still be within the confidence interval.
I completely agree--many times, papers from the social sciences appear as exercises in "wringing signal from a sea of noise." They're not always successful or convincing! But often there is wide latitude because of the inherent noise...don't ask me why! I got out of economics for a reason!
Also notably the rural/urban divide is even wider, so even taking the data at face value it appears that it also be justified that high earners are more likely to be in urban areas, and that high-earner rural residents are more likely to spend time in urban areas, and that people more exposed to multiculturalism are more likely to espouse concern with policing.
If they they have a good confidence, there error could be around 3% up or down. So that's not bad.
And, yes, I think Defund the Police was primarily espoused and driven by people who would be little affected by the outcome of such performative stances.
The people who live in the places where the police got defunded suffer greater crime rates and disorder --which is why we see people at the grass roots asking for more police.
It's known that lawless places will suffer from lawlessness and then engender vigilantism --this is evident is most war-torn places where 'warlords'/gansters control neighborhoods.
Few cities reduced police budgets at all certainly nobody in any meaningful way defunded the police and even cities short of officers have funding for additional officers they lack people far more than money.
Also in case you didn't notice police don't do much to protect normal folks from crime. They'll be there 15 minutes after whatever happened happened to file a report if they aren't too busy screwing with law abiding citizens.
Personally Ive seen little help when needed and plenty of harassment.
> Yes, the police harass, sometimes I get harassed but that presence is what puts a lid on crime.
> I’ll put up with some harassment in exchange for fewer criminals running free.
Maybe you have a specific harassment:imprisonment ratio in mind, but to me this just says "bring on the police state".
> We can seek redress from the police, we cannot seek redress from criminals.
You can seek it, unless of course they kill you. But will you actually find it? Police departments are famous for investigating themselves and finding that they did nothing wrong.
I was harassed repeatedly made to stand with my hands on a patrol car for 15 minutes in case I had developed a record since last week when I was just walking home from my job at night. I was ultimately falsely arrested for using bad language whilst walking away, prepared a reasonable defense then a excellent appeal both of which were ignored. They showed it as dropped then re-raised it when I had left town.
If I was willing to spend 30 days in jail lose thousands of dollars income and spend thousands more I might be able to win it when appeals took it out of that fucked up state.
Realistically I can't do anything about it.
On the other hand they didnt really investigate the 2 attempts to burn down my apartment building attempted homicide x 50 x 2 nor arrest the ex co-worker who tried to murder one of his fellows in a walmart parking lot.
I was left to organize a neighborhood patrol of the premises in the one case and get a psycho to chase me to get him off a guy who can only run by pressing x.
We live in the worst of all possible worlds where police are available to shoot teens but aren't available to do their jobs. If you wonder why you can't hire enough cops wonder no more. It's not liberals pissing in their cornflakes a lot of good folks don't choose to be a part of an obvious shit show.
In closing it's been said those who would give up essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither but more importantly they get neither. A police state isn't a particularly safe place.
Also, it's not quite clear how much of a material difference exists between the middle answer and the defund the police answer. The slogan has some optics issues, but diverting funds from overfunded surplus military gear filled police departments to social support networks is not likely to be controversial with the middle group either.
You’re making a huge false equivalence. We’re talking about anthropogenic climate change specifically. Implying that it is the same as ancient weather patterns from before the Industrial Revolution is comically dishonest.
I fell for this once when I was a newer developer. I bought a book on my Kindle about Ruby on Rails, thinking it might be more insightful or accessible than the Rails docs. But every chapter was literally just copy/pasted from the Rails docs (which are free).
Like 3/4 of Amazon's listings for classic books are Print on Demand scams that exist to trick people buying books as gifts, who don't know what they're looking at and don't know to watch out for this sort of thing. Just Project Gutenberg text automatically sent to the printer, no manual typesetting or clean-up or any actual care put into it. They're just garbage, literally. Pure waste.
A funny thing that made the rounds on social media over here a few years ago was somebody buying a translated copy of Moby Dick. Turned out it was evidently translated by Google translate or some similar service, and it was atrocious.
Literally the first sentence "Call me Ishmael" was translated as if the meaning was to tell Ishmael to call the story teller on the phone.
It’s a huge shame too because it shouldn’t be that hard for Amazon to filter it out. It’s not like there isn’t a database of these classic works, at least the ~2000 most popular ones that must account for 95+% of searches. If only they had the economic incentive to do so.
"Our AI is useless not because we're a dysfunctional corporate behemoth that slowly kills every product it touches. No, no. Our AI is useless because making useful AI is evil, and we're not evil."
reply