DirkH

Incredible. But on mobile the menu is in the way and you can't play. Why no button to hide the stats?

Name one other market that would benefit financially from having most of the leaders in the field say what they are building has a high chance of ending humanity?

Biotech - "what we are building our noble prize winning expertd say will likely will end humanity, wanna buy shares?" Oil - "this will likely lead to the end of civilization, 20% of leaders in the field say so, wanna buy shares?"

I keep seeing this take that this is a marketing stunt. The burden of proof is on those that say so. The most parsimonious explanation is simply that real experts in AI believe the risk is very real, and not for ideological reasons.

I wonder if you think and feel the same level of boredom and complete lack of magic of the Apollo module once you learn how incredibly limited and not able to explore the whole solar system this tech was.

If we run this experiment and most people say they wish they could replace their battery would you concede you are actually the one with idiosyncratic preferences?

I have multiple friends at Anthropic. I can second this. One thing I notice about Anthropic culture is that it is unusually kind.

So much so that I worry they won't be Machiavellian enough to survive. Hope I am wrong.

There literally are drugs vastly less addictive and harmful than others. So some designation of some as "soft" and others as "hard" is not unwarranted (though we can argue where that cutoff is) and anything that paints all drugs the same is a false equivalence that suspiciously appears more ideologically anti-drug driven rather than impartial evidence-driven.

Same goes for anyone saying all gambling is the same.

It is good provocation even if it is poor analogy.

This is because bacon is more like cigarettes than most people assume, even if far less dangerous in practice.

Like another example is "sugar is poison." which is also structured as a factual equivalence and also gesturing at something real and also designed to land as a stronger claim than the evidence warrants.

Modern industrial farming practices are so far removed from "natural" with how they are processed that an ultra-processed slurry of starches and oils is more far more "natural" by comparison.

If you want to simply go by societal resilience from biorisks then switching to more easily controllable substances like plant based meat for protein would be an absolute win.

I wonder if there is any evidence of the Iran war starting, in part, as a distraction from this. I recall reading somewhere that there is a long historical trend of countries and empires going to war - so much so that some of it can even be predictably modelled - once economic realities and discontent at home get too bad. War then acts as a form of national unity that helps keep the current elite in power.

Dubai is predictable evil. You know what to do to avoid trouble.

The Trump admin acts like it is on cocaine. Many people - and I think this can be a highly rational preference - prefer predictable more evil of chaotic less evil.

Ask the real questions and they go silent it seems

You sound like you are laying blame at the feet of companies following employment laws when you should be complaining to the government that makes the employment laws the company is abiding by.

The safest version will still be better overall regardless, by definition. It is also a better future for most if it is inevitable that the war department is going to use a less safe alternative if they can't use the safer one.

Felt very weird reading this on HN and not r/ENFPmemes. I agree completely.

Then the 2 of you probably just disagree on what constitutes socially acceptable free expression.

We've crossed multiple "ultimate red flags". Won't be surprising if it happens.

Reading sound takes like this vs seemingly everyone on reddit celebrating his death makes me quite sad.

People get rejected from companies based on nothing but vibes of personality fit every day.

Specialized research AI agents are coming at which point we'll have numerous LLMs running and verifying experiments and creating a higher quality text corpus than the 2014-2020 halcyon, which is then used for other LLMs to be trained on.

It will be the reverse I suspect. Eventually we will see that LLM quality is lower when it is training data from 2014-2020 and will chalk it up to human limitations and the data not being written with a laser-focused goal of training better AI.

Something that Google, in hindsight, regrets.

I feel like all the BS we were taught about architecture design principles multi-AZ, failover strategies, graceful degradation etc was gaslighting us all into thinking any of out work on it actually matters.

This isn't true, but it feels like this when the entire engineering world order seems to actually run on single-point-of-failures where one CEO just messages another when some 3rd party is down. And reputational risk here is completely safeguarded because as long as everyone is down you are fine. Use a service everyone uses and it goes down = no reputational risk. Use a more robust architecture and make some mistake = massive reputational risk and everyone asks why you don't use what everyone else uses.

Blind leading the blind and all that.

I just want to point put there that your argument's exact same rhetorical structure could be (and has been) used to deny "rape culture":

E.g. - "Rape is illegal and prosecuted, so how can we have a 'rape culture'?" - "That's not rape culture, that's just individual bad actors" - "People criticizing women's clothing choices is normal social interaction" - "Rape culture is a partisan feminist concept like [insert dismissive comparison]"

The parallel is that both involve:

1. Demanding an impossibly narrow definition (complete silence vs. systematic legal tolerance) 2. Dismissing patterns as "just normal social behavior" 3. Focusing on whether the most extreme version exists rather than whether there's a meaningful phenomenon worth discussing 4. Using the term's political associations to avoid engaging with the substance

The irony is particularly sharp when you argue that "telling someone to shut up" is quintessentially social while simultaneously arguing that coordinated efforts to damage someone's reputation/livelihood for speech don't constitute a distinct social phenomenon worth naming.

Never works

No silly, politicians specifically will exempt from such monitoring. So duh, not every single person will be monitored.

This was a once unscripted statement that she never repeated again her entire campaign. She expressed regret immediately after making it (not after losing) explaining how it was grossly generalistic but stood by that it does describe a large chunk of Trump's base.

Can you name one time Trump immediately regretted what he said about the Left and explained that it was an overgeneralization? Also again, in Clinton's case it was a single unscripted statement. By contrast Trump has a pattern of calling opponents vermin, the anti-christ, evil, warning of a bloodbath to come... Yea the left's attacks on the right just don't seem nearly as bad especially if it is just being called "deplorable" once. I could write a book that is just hateful Trump quotes. Ganna print it and give it to my son one day as inspiration for how to be an honourable leader. /s

I say all this as a Canadian that would have voted for Trump in 2016 if I could have.

You check your banking apps multiple times each day with the frequency and unpredictability expected from messaging apps?

If not that frequently or unpredictably then you could just plan to use your laptop for banking some time during the day.

What website is this?

The left is statistically more likely to publicly endorse political violence looking at data over the past few years. The right is more likely to actually commit political violence though looking over all data over decades and that still holds today.

Far-left versus Far-right Fatal Violence: An Empirical Assessment of the Prevalence of Ideologically Motivated Homicides in the United States

One side is all shout and no bite. The other is no shout and then eat your fucking face.

I'll take the idiots shouting but not actually killing if I had to pick. But I won't lie the choice still makes me feel dirty.

Bimodal distribution. Edgelords are amplified as is conformity. People are being pushed more and more to the opposite ends.

Both conclusions can be right at the same time.

That was an absolutely lovely read. I did not think I would get so invested. However... I didn't know she died as well so the final sentence on her wiki article caught my off-guard :(