nickysielicki

6 ms·

61.
by nickysielicki 8mo ago
Did you guys really think that the jurisprudential issues that became endemic after 9/11 suddenly disappeared because we discovered LLMs? Let’s put pressure on our government to fix the FISA issues. Let’s reign in the executive branch.
62.
by nickysielicki 8mo ago
> When in reality they are not adversarial. This is obviously subjective, and the only subject that matters in this case is the leadership at the DoD. > We have no choice but to pay taxes and make the federal government 20 percent of
63.
by nickysielicki 8mo ago
Nobody is saying that Anthropic has to shut down. They’re just saying that nobody taking government money can pay Anthropic for their service as a part of that contract. Anthropic still has the right to exist on their own terms, but their b
64.
by nickysielicki 8mo ago
But there will always be deficiencies in testing, and regardless, the point is that Anthropic is intentionally introducing behavior into their models which increases the chance of a deficiency being introduced specifically as it pertains to
65.
by nickysielicki 8mo ago
> the existing contract included the language on usage. Other companies also have such language about usage. The existing contract is only a few dozen months old. It didn’t hold up to scrutiny under real world usage of the service. The g
66.
by nickysielicki 8mo ago
That’s because no company who has ever sold weapons to the government has ever been brazen enough to tell the government how they can and cannot use their purchase. It’s unprecedented because most companies that sell to the government are p
67.
by nickysielicki 8mo ago
> The government isn't banning Anthropic because using it harms national security. They are banning it in retribution for Anthropic taking a stand. You might be completely right about their real motivations, but try to steelman the
68.
by nickysielicki 8mo ago
Obviously, but that's a huge number and some tens-of-billions amount of that absolutely does flow towards hyperscalers. Contractors need compute.
69.
by nickysielicki 8mo ago
Huawei did eventually end up on the entities list, but there was a gap between when it was initially announced and when it became law, and the divestment from contractors started immediately overnight.
70.
by nickysielicki 8mo ago
obviously, I was never suggesting that the DoD spends $961b a year on cloud computing. Look, it’s a very simple question: Amazon has invested $8b into anthropic. Do you think if the DoD disappeared tomorrow that Amazon would lose more than
71.
by nickysielicki 8mo ago
The counterparty risk on those buildout contracts is not the same as their equity investments. Amazon isn’t assuming the entirety of that buildout exposure as a vote of confidence or form of investment in anthropic; they’re hedging it with
72.
by nickysielicki 8mo ago
Source? Half of that budget gets contracted out to Lockheed, Raytheon, Northrop, Boeing, General Dynamics, etc. Those companies absolutely do spend money on the hyperscalers.
73.
by nickysielicki 8mo ago
The cost of a company like Amazon or Google losing their piece of that $1T annual budget is greater than their exposure to the failure of Anthropic.
74.
by nickysielicki 8mo ago
* * *
75.
by nickysielicki 8mo ago
You expect hyperscalers to play chicken with the DoD? The courts have historically been pretty consistent about giving the DoD whatever the fuck they want, going back to WW2 and even longer for the predecessors of the DoD. I agree that the
76.
by nickysielicki 8mo ago
This could kill Anthropic. The designation says any contractor, supplier, or partner doing business with the US military can’t conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic. Well, AWS has JWCC. Microsoft has Azure Government. Google has Do
77.
by nickysielicki 8mo ago
Pagerank is not Claude.
78.
by nickysielicki 8mo ago
right, so why are you asking me to imagine one machine that can calculate using logic circuits and another that can calculate using a lookup table when we’re in agreement that they’re the same thing? I reject the premise of your analogy.
79.
by nickysielicki 8mo ago
never mind the fact that the model is constantly reseeding itself against the files it’s reading from your working directory, so the prompts are useless on their own.
80.
by nickysielicki 8mo ago
But logic circuits are look up tables.
81.
by nickysielicki 8mo ago
Well, that’s obviously bad. But once you told it to stop cheating, did it eventually figure it out? I mean, correctly implementing fuzzer support for a project is entirely within the wheelhouse of current models. It’s not rocket science.
82.
by nickysielicki 8mo ago
Is that what this was all about? Depth and integrity? Rigor and hard work? Because I thought it was all about writing useful programs for computers.
83.
by nickysielicki 8mo ago
There never was a cohesive generic open source community. There are no meaningful group norms. This was and always will be a fiction. I’m tempted to just start putting co-authored-by: Claude in every commit I make, even the ones that I writ
84.
by nickysielicki 8mo ago
I’m just curious, what would need to happen for you to change your opinion about this? Are you basically of the opinion that it’s not good enough today, never will be good enough in the future, and we should just wind back the clock 3 years
85.
by nickysielicki 8mo ago
> Having 100 tiny gitignores makes finding out why something is excluded annoying. Our policy is one root level gitgnore and gitkeeps where required. This is not a complicated or important enough problem to justify a team-wide policy. Le
86.
by nickysielicki 8mo ago
That's not what I'm saying. My point is that expertise, as in, credentials, institutional knowledge, accepted wisdom, was actively harmful to solving flight. The Wrights succeeded because they built a tool that made iteration chea
87.
by nickysielicki 8mo ago
> AI models are extremely bad at original thinking, so any thinking that is offloaded to a LLM is as a result usually not very original, even if they’re very good at treating your inputs to the discussion as amazing genius level insights
88.
by nickysielicki 8mo ago
What qualifies as a non-compliant certificate?
89.
by nickysielicki 8mo ago
> Imagine being a vim or emacs user and have those replaced by something you have to type entire sentences for functionality. This has already happened for a non-negligible amount of people on this site. I still use magit to prepare comm
90.
Darknet Market Maximalism(antimoonboy.com)
2 points by nickysielicki 8mo ago|0 comments

More ›