I would imagine these folks are being treated like gods at their companies. And having access to all the money/fame. It is not surprising they see themselves above all
I guess this is true in more ways than one. Kasparov famously accused IBM of cheating during the match, by spying on his preparation (edit: though the main cheating accusation was live human intervention during the games, on top of IBM downplaying the heavy human involvement behind the AI, which also mirrors this situation)
If you read his account of things, its very much that if they didnt cheat, they gave themselves every opportunity to cheat. But above all that there was a bunch of chess protocol they failed to observe in that match, like providing seats for Kasparovs team and rooms for them to prep in. Even if they didnt have a big room full of chess notables definitely not refining the output, he was personally getting pushed around on a few fronts which unnerved him. If they had given him a few rematches I think they could have confirmed the win, but they refused which is super sus.
Deep Blue beat Kasparov fair and square. Kasparov was a bit of a bad sport at the end of the match, though the reasons are understandable. He was at the top of the human chess world. He wasn't used to losing, and he took it badly.
I think it's because customers don't seem to mind enough to switch.
I really want to support Anthropic because of their commitments to effective altruism, but it's getting harder and harder to justify on technical merits. Sol is just faster, cheaper, and more reliable, and as good as Opus for my use cases
> I really want to support Anthropic because of their commitments to effective altruism
If you're really committed to the ideas of EA, shouldn't you dispassionately select whatever model works best for you, then make as much money as possible using that and donate it? :)
I've recently started using codex for most of my coding. Haven't looked back so far: It seems to reason deeper about the code it writes and has much less downtime.
> Notably, people in the latter group never assume THEY will be the ones suffering for the future.
What makes you think so? What evidence do you have?
> Yes, some people think effective altruism means helping people here and now as efficiently as possible.
Most effective altruists seem pretty relaxed about the 'here' part, but you are right that the 'now' part receives different answers from different subgroups.
> Others think the sheer number of potential sentients in the future justify any amount of suffering tolerated in the here and now.
There's also the people who care a lot about shrimp. They are less crazy than it seems at first.
Estimate of the number of people in that latter group? Nick Beckstead is probably the cleanest example of an extreme longtermist, but even he has taken the GWWC pledge. Similarly, Nick Bostrom argues in a pretty longtermist way and is neither vegan nor has taken the pledge, but I don’t see any particular evidence that he has a morality that an average person would call evil. Toby Ord and Will MacAskill are both visibly mundanely extra-super-ethical despite their longtermist views.
> I really want to support Anthropic because of their commitments to effective altruism
They are doing the opposite while saying the other. Zero trust about that. They are using every malicious playbook tactic these days to increase users and be more profitable and lock-in the users. Even OpenAI feels better these days.
I mean, that’s exactly what “effective altruism” is about? Getting filthy rich and powerful no matter the methods and then the vague promise of doing something good?
Not really. They seems to chase IPO so that alone proves that they can’t hold any promise about doing something good. They would need to stay as private company to have any power to do some ”good” in the end.
The public book went to 0 and LPs lost everything. The 80% number is a result of blending the Anthropic stake (+620% YTD, 25% of NAV) and the public book (-100%, 75% of NAV) = +80% YTD
The post for the most part is mine, so if something AI generated slipped into it it's on me. I can share with you what I did to write the article which I do for most of my writing.
I start out with what I want to talk about, and then make an initial draft. In this case I also had Sol research all current APIs so I don't have blind spots. I tend to also talk with an AI to see if the structure structure of the post makes sense. I then wrote all sections by hand but used Sol to fix up typos, grammar and punctuation. I also had Sol apply notes and patches that were provided via Discord.
If I find the earlier drafts I can check if it did some more outrageous edits, but I kinda doubt it did. I do know that my workflow of having an LLM to fixes up later is increasingly breaking on SOTA models and I have complained about this before. Normally I now carefully apply fixes that it proposes, but in this case I didn't due to time constraints.
I am curious though why it claims that this is AI generated.
Which quotes Tao on using deliberate disinformation to preserve anonymity.
> …one additional way to gain more anonymity is through deliberate disinformation. For instance, suppose that one reveals 100 independent bits of information about oneself. Ordinarily, this would cost 100 bits of anonymity (assuming that each bit was a priori equally likely to be true or false), by cutting the number of possibilities down by a factor of 2100; but if 5 of these 100 bits (chosen randomly and not revealed in advance) are deliberately falsified, then the number of possibilities increases again by a factor of (100 choose 5) ~ 226, recovering about 26 bits of anonymity.
Intentionally adding writing "tics", scheduling posts to appear between 2am and 6am in your timezone, or pretending to have a different gender/location/age should help a lot in staying pseudonymous for a while longer.
I was thinking this. Why not just lie? Come up with personas, stack them on other personas, and eventually you're pretending to be a 23 year old Asian man from California who is pretending to be a 50 year old New Zealand carpenter and half the bits are muddled.
What are you writing about? The real person is going to write about what they know, so when the topic of housing comes up, and they pick New York City to discuss zoning restrictions, sure it's possible they're in New Zealand or California, but it makes more sense to assume the user behind the keyboard is in NYC. The question is, for what purposes is the user trying to be unmasked? In the world we live in, the entirely boring purpose is to sell them ads.
> The question is, for what purposes is the user trying to be unmasked?
I disagree that ads are the only reason to dox someone. I assume that few pieces of writing would be controversial enough to warrant a fake identity, but those few would be important.
If I wanted to pseudonymously accuse a mayor of corruption, I think it would be safer to generate true stats and interview real people, but do so in an area I don't live, with some anecdotes where the facts don't quite match my life, using language that has been edited by a friend with a different writing style.
Possibly, but it can be very difficult to conceal age or location reliability, especially as your corpus of text grows. And of course that is with just the text, when you start adding in other bits of digital information it gets even more difficult.
Well, for Arch Linux, there was the unofficial version from the official binary in the AUR already... (Not sure what you mean by 'no arch based distro support').
This is clearly shown in the settings/config (or at least was last time I looked), if people are surprised by this I recommend asking claude code what settings you can tweak
Why ask for what settings you can tweak? It's supposed to be the case that the defaults are good for many, and then when something needs tweaking you ask about it at that point. And still though this 30 day limit might be good for many, it's actually pretty bad overall because it leads to irreversible loss for those who it isn't good.
