s1artibartfast

3 ms·

31.
by s1artibartfast 8d ago
How was it to flock to create the laws? They looked at them and figured out it was legal.
32.
by s1artibartfast 10d ago
easy to say at a distance. It didnt have full control and had the nuclear powers pushing them to. We dont know if Ukraine would be a state today if they refused
33.
by s1artibartfast 11d ago
Who do you think is being tricked exactly? I can guarantee it isn't the team of lawyers and analysts at their investors firms.
34.
by s1artibartfast 11d ago
Sure, it leaves many people with unanswered questions. I wish all companies would provide me with their confidential information. I find it fascinating that so many people default to Indignant outrage and critique because they want more
35.
by s1artibartfast 12d ago
This concern trolling on behalf of people that can't read to the end of a sentence, about a conversation that they aren't even part of. Anthropic is clear on what they are communicating. If every message had to be dumbed down to t
36.
by s1artibartfast 12d ago
Because consumers don't care much about ads and prefer them to even minor cost differences.
37.
by s1artibartfast 12d ago
Yes, with nuance. They think there is a significant chance AI will lead to extinction or subordination of humans. I think the averages survey sentiment is that it is about 25% likely to happen. Some think it more likely, others less. There
38.
by s1artibartfast 13d ago
I saw this tweet[1] the day after. I go every week and saw shelves were full, but bought a years supply for our cars just in case... https://x.com/GeorgeRoush/status/2054364409812918502
39.
by s1artibartfast 13d ago
What do you think the difference is. If you are making a quarter trillion in profit per year (where NVIDIA is tracking), you want to invest. What else should they be buying? US bonds, housing?
40.
by s1artibartfast 13d ago
Only when more money is created than production increases. If money grows faster than goods for consumption, then buyers bid up price resulting in inflation.
41.
by s1artibartfast 13d ago
who is "[harvesting cash] from stock markets"? Show me where consumers are being bilked. NVDA hasn't sold any stock to the public since 1999. If they want to trade shovels for ownership stake in the mines - good for them. The
42.
by s1artibartfast 13d ago
Sam still doesn't have any equity.
43.
by s1artibartfast 13d ago
It doesnt matter if you trust them or not. I don't know why people get so hung up on this. Blind trust is for children and the only certain things in this world are death and taxes. The point is that openAI is currently messaging again
44.
by s1artibartfast 13d ago
The CEOs of testified to Congress begging for regulation
45.
by s1artibartfast 13d ago
Most of the people I know working at AI Labs believe it. I think surveys back this up. We have a situation where the people running the labs are claiming it's a big risk. Outside experts not working for the labs are claiming it's
46.
by s1artibartfast 13d ago
Im less concerned about hn change and more about society and the public I have to coexist with. People use cynicism as a tool to avoid thinking or engage with reality. It is just reactionary snark, and everyone nodds along. It isnt a positi
47.
by s1artibartfast 14d ago
They are just mind killed - jilted by past lies to the point where they react oppositionally instead of looking the world around them and thinking. Most are the same people who said LLMs will amount to nothing when GPT-2 came out. Some stil
48.
by s1artibartfast 14d ago
Perhaps, but that is no excuse. Rampant and unconstrained cynicism is toxic and self-destructive. Like a child that starts smashing their toys, hoping someone will take pity on them.
49.
by s1artibartfast 14d ago
You know you can look it up if you are skeptical, right?
50.
by s1artibartfast 14d ago
Good. It will take decades of economic and social innovation to catch up with current model capabilities. No upside is worth the potential downsides of getting this wrong, even if you set aside all the x-risk stuff.
51.
by s1artibartfast 14d ago
Why do you reject the idea or possibility of yes to military capability, but with ethics or restrictions? It seems obviously possible, and your arguments support it. Where is this tacit endorsement you see coming from? It seems like nobody
52.
by s1artibartfast 15d ago
"It" is having some level of military capability. I agree with Ajedi32 that not doing it is strict pacifism. beloch and jump- advocated for some level of national defense as a practical necessity sophacles- stupidly thought this w
53.
by s1artibartfast 15d ago
That explains the confusion. I dont think anyone in the chain made that equivalency.
54.
by s1artibartfast 15d ago
How is that an argument that demilitarized pacifism is a tenable national policy. This was the point you started arguing against. Russia hasent nuked Ukraine so nobody needs defenses or arms?
55.
by s1artibartfast 15d ago
I dont think they would, but think it would work if they did
56.
by s1artibartfast 15d ago
I got that far. Does the 2nd point contradict the first (setting aside the question of if other deterrents are at play in Russia?)
57.
by s1artibartfast 15d ago
I think the better argument is that Europe has a credible nuclear defense, therefore they don't need conventional military. If Russia starts rolling tanks towards Berlin, drop a nuke outside their international waters and announce the
58.
by s1artibartfast 15d ago
Maybe I'm slow , but how is that relevant to the point? Can you expand? Am I understand is that defense is important because sooner or later someone else may choose aggression. You might put your life savings on the street in front of
59.
by s1artibartfast 17d ago
Pretty strange if they didnt steal Buckmaster's work, right
60.
by s1artibartfast 17d ago
taps sign

More ›