3 ms·
First its the "Chinese" then it will be people using "cyber" capabilities, or "jailbreaking" or "going against Dario" or any other thing they find "objectionabl
by kiproping 3mo ago
First its the "Chinese" then it will be people using "cyber" capabilities, or "jailbreaking" or "going against Dario" or any other thing they find "objectionable".
- ezoe 3mo agoYou forgot "Think about the children"
- jknoepfler 3mo ago[flagged]
- nosioptar 3mo agoWasn't she too busy burning down Portland to go to DC?
- pmarreck 3mo ago[flagged]
- appplication 3mo agoI don’t mean to insult you, but it is probably worth refreshing yourself on when slippery slope is actually a fallacy. It’s not correct to suggest logical extension of an established precedent is a slippery slope.
- brookst 3mo agoSlipper slope is always a fallacy. It works as a metaphor, and as a rhetorical device, but the fact that it’s possible to construct a gradient from heaven to hell is not proof that each step in the gradient is inevitable. It’s a good way to illustrate a potential bad path. But I can construct a slippery slope from commenting on HN to making bioweapons. That should not be seen as evidence that HN commenters are likely to do such a thing, and should not be used as an argument to forego (or ban) commenting on HN.
- jonathanstrange 3mo agoThat's not correct. Many slippery slope arguments are perfectly valid and sound, namely whenever there is plausible evidence for the existence of the respective slippery slope. It can for instance be based on historical precedents, or on probabilistic or convincing balance of consideration sub-arguments for the slippery slope premise. Whether its a fallacy or not depends a lot on how warranted the slippery slope premise is (notwithstanding other, possible logical errors that might me made in setting up the argument, of course).
- brookst 3mo agoGive an example where a slippery slope is itself a legitimate argument and not just a rhetorical technique to oppose A using arguments against B?
- FooBarWidget 3mo agoTheir terms of service already effectively attacks people for criticizing Anthropic. It says that if you use Claude to criticize Anthropic, then you've pre-agreed to pay for their lawyers going after you, and pre-agreed to lose the court case.
- throwawayffffas 3mo agoSince Fable if you use Claude to do ML research they find objectionable you are delegated to less capable models.
- lowbuzz 3mo agoI don't think that would hold up in a court. At least not outside of the US.
- FooBarWidget 3mo agoDoesn't matter. Getting entangled up in a court case that lasts years is hassle enough by itself that it's effective as an attack.