cooper_ganglia

Tesla, Falcon 9, Starlink, Mechazilla, SolarCity, Colossus, Neuralink, Starship, Optimus...

Claude has an "End Conversation" tool that it can trigger on it's own, forcing your interaction to a close based on it's own feelings towards the conversation.

I have no idea how this wasn't the end of Anthropic's positive public perception.

These are always exciting, even if it's more of the same. I love that we live in a time where we can regularly watch huge rockets launch into space with intentional issues just to see what might go wrong and how best to monitor/solve them.

Congratulations, everyone, at being alive at the best point in human history so far!

This is the EXACT evolution of this product that I've wanted. For simple tasks on some of my desktop machines, I don't want to mess with SSH or remoting into them, I just want to tell an AI agent what I need, let it build a plan that I press "Approve" on, and let it rip. This is the ClawdBot killer!

"Because I have a job, it is now impossible for me to raise my children. I have to outsource this to a council of legislators because I'm simply too busy!"

Bad argument, bad outcomes. These are exactly the "bad parents" I was referring to in my original comment. The government HAS no responsibility in raising your child, but they would LOVE to change that. It's absolutely imperative for the human race that that does not happen.

The politicians that want to identify everyone capitalize on organic desire for these proposals in the form of fear-mongering and "Think of the children!"

Citizens that want these laws are unthinking drones who don't want to raise their children, and instead want legislators to do it for them.

Politicians that want these laws are the people who, ideally, want to track your every move online for a multitude of reasons, not least of which are censoring speech and controlling narratives.

THe government shouldn't be raising anyone's children, that's what parents are for. If you're a bad parent, your kids will get access to bad things and could become an adult failure.

The future of your family and your legacy is up to you, not the government. We don't need age verification to restrict the social darwinism of raising children.

From the article:

Specifying an objective to the model is not enough. Directing how the work is constructed is what counts.

Surely you are responsible for the consequences of what you do, no matter how indirect?

No, that’s preposterous. You are not responsible for the actions of others simply because your actions put them in a place to perform said actions. That seems like a very stressful way to go through life.

Nor should you be burdened with that.

This is why we elect competent (hopefully) leaders to worry about these things for us. Mob rule democracy about every national secret would mean they’re not secrets for very long!

No. Their comment was: “Any AI researcher who continues to work here is morally compromised.”

But, “…doing this kind of work with the federal government.” is added context that was not there and is based on your own interpretation.

The language of the parent comment charges that simply working at a company that is engaging in this makes one complicit in an immoral act, and the complicity itself is immoral. I disagree with all of that.

Literally the parent comment:

Any AI researcher who continues to work here is morally compromised.

You should probably give this a second look:

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

No, that's what classified means.

Why would you write a letter if you don't know what you're objecting to or even if you should be objecting?

Google should never be determining what is lawful or not.

Just because you are working with your government does not mean what you’re doing is necessarily immoral, either.

Your only reference is a reversed policy from 2+ years ago that displayed a message but never stopped you from posting at all, and it only ever affected mobile users??

Also, promoting a specific documentary from a production company doesn’t mean they agree with all the other things PragerU says. Even if they did, it literally doesn’t matter, because X isn’t actively restricting alternate opinions the way Bluesky does. I know, because I see awful takes on X nearly everyday! ;)

Surely you can see how requiring ID for a physical cigs, drugs, and alcohol purchases is different from requiring ID to use a website?

“Think of the children” is the exact tool fascists use to erode liberties. Governments worldwide salivate at the idea of having a registry of what every individual is doing online at any given moment.

I just searched Twitter for “cis” and found endless results, including a forgotten tweet of my own from 2+ years ago that’s never been taken down and I haven’t been banned for! :)

Nobody is getting banned for that, that’s just another Bluesky-ism!

I don’t care how anyone else chooses to raise their children. They can let their kids rot their brains, do poorly in school, and fail in life without ever getting me or the government involved. I am not responsible for raising the failed children of failed parents. I care ONLY about the outcomes of my family, friends, and, to a slightly lesser extent, my broader local community.

Promoting failed parents and children, not in spite of their failures but because of them, is suicidal empathy, a modern mental illness that was never able to fully take root in the past, because the world was always much smaller, divided, and cutthroat.

If given the binary choice between “being an individual” or a “civilization”, I would choose to burn down the civilization in a moment IF it meant the eradication of the individuality of those that I love. I would hope every single person with a heart beating in their chest would feel the exact same way, or else THAT is when a society truly collapses.

To borrow your analogy, the Indians became alcoholics because “they were genetically predisposed to it”? Okay, well why would we want to increase genetic predisposition to alcoholism in the gene pool by denying someone their freedom to drink themselves stupid?

You can argue that it wouldn’t be fair to their children, but those who aren’t drunkards could become wealthy casino owners whose children will prosper more than even you or I, while those whose genes, according to your perspective, apparently don’t allow them to control their own urges will fail, and their lineage will end, along with their hereditary alcoholism.

I see no reason for society to bear any level of responsibility for individuals regardless of context, as society is built by successful individuals , and it is torn apart by failed ones. We must allow the natural outcomes, which is that failed people will fail.

Evolution, if guided by humans, would quickly devolve into chaos, as we can’t accurately select for the correct pressures for success. It simply has to occur. Society is a living organism in the same way.

Ideologically isolated, obviously.

The basis for its existence is to supply a platform for people who want to isolate from ideas and narratives they find uncomfortable, so they self-select into echo chambers that cater to their preexisting ideologies. That's their whole business model!

That Bluesky comment snuck up on me and got a good laugh from me!

You mean the fine folks over at Bluesky, the social media network built around isolation, intolerance, and refusing to listen to other’s POV, exhibit these same character flaws?!

Who’d’ve thunk? :)

As a parent, you have direct control over who your kid’s friends are.

We used to say, “If all your friends jumped off a cliff, would you?”.

Now we say, “Well, the kids are going to jump off a cliff anyway, I can’t stop them, so the government should make a law about it!”

I don’t think that’s the way to handle things. Parents who are bad at parenting will raise kids that fraternize with kids who jump off of cliffs. Maybe theirs will too, one day. Unfortunate, but the kids at the top of the cliff, who were actually raised, will excel.

Social Darwinism > Government Regulation

I don’t think the answer is banning phones (except in school, context dependent), it’s letting lazy, bad parents have natural outcomes for their children and allowing the rest to work itself out through the social free market.

It sounds cruel, but if someone is set on allowing their children to be raised by strangers on the internet and the government, they need to be ready to accept any outcomes that come along with that.

Well, I don’t agree with any laws like that, they’re all silly.

Nobody under 16 should be on social media for their own good, but it’s their parent’s job to prevent them from rotting their brains, not some governing body.

This is pretty radical, but what if, perhaps, the children touched grass instead of doom scrolling?

Lonely children aren’t the fault of the government, they’re the fault of parents who let them scroll TikTok in their rooms all day, because actually parenting would be difficult or inconvenient.

The mindless paternalism is the point! People like this want a Nanny State to enforce their own ideals, as they arbitrarily believe themselves to be morally superior.

That’s why these laws happen to begin with. It starts as “Think of the children”, and ends with the death of the anonymized internet.

Governments crave that, and scared, hapless citizens who refuse to learn how to raise a child want Daddy Gubament to do it for them, and so push these laws into existence.

I would categorize HN as a news aggregator with a comment section, not social media.

John Ternus is the perfect choice. I expected Craig, and that would've been great, but Ternus is going to really be something special in that role!