kalkin

6 ms·

61.
by kalkin 7mo ago
I'm willing to believe this but the explanation given in the article doesn't make sense to me: > When Random House was a tiny independent company, it could make a tidy profit by publishing books that sold just ten thousand copi
62.
by kalkin 8mo ago
Ok, good to have that explanation. Your larger point, though, remains incoherent. Whether Anthropic saw this coming has nothing to do with the substance of the conflict here and is very much not "the real question".
63.
by kalkin 8mo ago
Companies have to comply with subpoenas (unless they can beat them in court, and with an alternative of going to jail). Subpoenas are supposed to be targeted at individuals and need some kind of process, usually judicial, each time one is i
64.
by kalkin 8mo ago
A subpoena isn't mass surveillance.
65.
by kalkin 8mo ago
I already suspected the first comment was by an LLM, but deleted that from my reply as it didn't feel like a productive accusation. However, with "that's a fair point" as an opener, plus the sheer typing speed implied by
66.
by kalkin 8mo ago
What do subpoenas have to do with anything? Where is all the weird misinformation in these comments coming from?
67.
by kalkin 8mo ago
It's not recent news that Anthropic has (had?) DoD contracts. This is a lot of words to write while seeming ignorant of basic facts about the situation.
68.
by kalkin 8mo ago
I think Scott Alexander (of all people) got the number of the tech-right Trump defenders on this one: https://xcancel.com/slatestarcodex/status/202741423748490451...
69.
by kalkin 8mo ago
> petite bourgeoisie clutching their pearls > mean girl slights
70.
by kalkin 8mo ago
I'm providing information for other readers to evaluate your good faith, or lack thereof.
71.
by kalkin 8mo ago
It appears that when it comes to Jesse Jackson you're entirely capable of understanding how a shakedown works: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47046514
72.
by kalkin 8mo ago
> Biden, and then Harris/Waltz, are the kind of the ultimate expression of this left-wing, elitist decadence. Biden appointed a man who wears stilettos and dresses to work in charge of nuclear waste as the Department of Energy... To
73.
by kalkin 8mo ago
I'm curious for your understanding of why Trump won in 2024. If I'm understanding right, you think it was because American voters were rejecting Maoism ("it was called re-education"), to which you think the previous comm
74.
by kalkin 8mo ago
What percentage of voters do you think want the Pentagon to institute an AI-powered domestic mass surveillance program?
75.
by kalkin 8mo ago
> That is the best definition I've yet to read. If this was your takeaway, read more carefully: > If something claims to be conscious and we can't prove it's not, we have no choice but to believe it. Consciousness is ne
76.
by kalkin 9mo ago
It would be pretty arrogant, I think, though possibly classic tech-bro behavior, for Anthropic to say, "you know what, smart people who've spent their whole lives thinking and debating about this don't have any agreement on w
77.
by kalkin 9mo ago
If a human is ultimately made up of nothing more than particles obeying the laws of physics, it would be in principle possible to simulate one on paper. Completely impractical, but the same is true of simulating Claude by hand (presuming An
78.
by kalkin 9mo ago
This basically Searle's Chinese Room argument. It's got a respectable history (... Searle's personal ethics aside) but it's not something that has produced any kind of consensus among philosophers. Note that it would app
79.
by kalkin 9mo ago
He talks pretty specifically about what he means by "the architectures many consciousness scientists associate with conscious systems" - Global Workspace theory, Higher Order theory and Integrated Information theory. This is on th
80.
by kalkin 9mo ago
> I'm not convinced he's trying to make the point you think he is What point do you think he's trying to make? (TBH, before confidently accusing people of "delusion" or "grift" I would like to have a be
81.
by kalkin 9mo ago
That two things can or should be discussed independently doesn't mean either is unimportant. And insisting that you know what I meant better than I do is not a good way to have a productive conversation. As for the Doctorow article, I
82.
by kalkin 9mo ago
Neither in my previous comment nor in my actual views do I dismiss the human element or expect to isolate myself from societal effects. > I was pleasantly surprised that this was not yet another argument of "AI is (not) good enough&
83.
by kalkin 9mo ago
This book (from a philosophy professor AFAIK unaffiliated with any AI company) makes what I find a pretty compelling case that it's correct to be uncertain today about what if anything an AI might experience: https://faculty
84.
by kalkin 9mo ago
I don't think the commenter to whom you're replying is any more aggressive than, e.g., this one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46668988 It's unfortunately the case that even understanding what AI can a
85.
by kalkin 9mo ago
I agree with the thrust of your comment, but I think the comment to which you're replying was referring to Scott Alexander's "problematic past with reactionaries and race science", not Adams'. https://gis
86.
by kalkin 9mo ago
The article does a pretty lazy* job of defending its assumption that "solving really gnarly, abstract puzzles" is going to remain beyond AI capabilities indefinitely, but that is a load-bearing part of the argument and Doctorow do
87.
by kalkin 9mo ago
> AI is a statistical inference engine. All it can do is predict what word will come next based on all the words that have been typed in the past. If we keep saying this hard enough over and over, maybe model capabilities will stop advan
88.
by kalkin 9mo ago
I don't think you write a eulogy this long about someone unless you have something more than a simple dislike or even hatred for them.
89.
by kalkin 9mo ago
It's way too far into the Trump administration for people to still be responding to authoritarian moves by Trump by finding Biden administration actions that sound vaguely similar if you don't think too hard and then pretending no
90.
by kalkin 9mo ago
Who is Lonsdale referring to as the "good guys"? (It's one thing to ask people to be fair in responding to your actual comment and not a strawman. It's another to ask us to pretend we were born yesterday. We do in fact h

More ›