Humorist2290

It's privately owned and indeed they can set the terms.

But if you're hired to write software, and you accept the job, and you accept payment, and then you decline -- well, it would be polite to offer a refund. Anthropic is, as far as I know, not up front about what is/isn't permitted to be generated, and has a history of refusing justifiable refunds.

In many US states a company can fire you even for protected reasons, and just fabricate a reason that isn't protected. Of course there are examples of people fighting this because it sometimes is a fight worth having, but the vast majority just have to accept being discriminated against and try to find another job.

This is clearly hostile to the idea of civilian oversight, but the absurd scale of it is rather funny to me.

If you put $100 into US Treasury bonds (and for approximation's sake, say they have a 1% annual yield) then after 1700 years you would have 2.2 billion. And of course, if the US collapses before then, they wouldn't be able to collect on the FOIA fee anyway.

I can't help but point out that these companies have a documented history of violating basically every ToS on the internet, as well as enough spare compute to burn 300B tokens on a hunch about Navier-Stokes. Given they have a clear financial incentive to lock in a majority of the US economy into perpetual API subscriptions, why wouldn't they use their means to reinforce the hegemony?

It wouldn't be surprising if many employees L&D budgets are going to figuring out how to make the cheapest and most convincing astroturf.

In a way, this task is perfectly suited for LLMs. To even understand the problem statement, much less the proof or Lean, is an extremely specialized skill. The overwhelming majority of people who are aware of this news simply don't have the capacity to call BS. Maybe there are a few thousand people in the world who could, and it seems they haven't yet, but indeed it's only been a few weeks.

The more familiar analogy was when I look at the code that Claude spews for my partner. They take it at face value and hope it works. I usually find it very problematic, but only because I knew what to look for.

Is there any question the person who was baselessly charged with CSAM, then terrorism when they realized it was so obviously untenable, as a pretense to detain him would've been treated differently if he were on a different "side"?

That is indeed a fun fact. One of those things I didn't realize, but immediately believe. Most of the gun owners I know have at least one or two antiques which predate modern notions like "safety" by quite a bit. They are fascinating technology, and they make for incredible family heirlooms.

To stay consistent with my point though, if we mandate that everyone must ID verify to access the internet, I think it's just as reasonable we mandate that all such antiques be forcibly modernized with some sort of 5G-connected ID scanner. For the children of course.

Yeah the suggestion is mostly facetious and I realize impracticable. As the other commenter mentioned -- it's a poison pill. If such a rider were added to the KIDS Act it would be dead in the water, without a doubt.

Though I think it's worth noting that age verification _without_ identity verification is basically as impracticable, and arguably more dangerous.

I can't remember right now where from, but I do remember some 10ish years ago listening to an NPR spot from some philosopher who claimed there was an existential crisis in the field of philosophy. The premise that I do remember was that our technology, our policy, and our society has all outpaced our ethics and our philosophy. The person was making the argument that we as a society would struggle to cope with the continued development of technology when we could barely cope with personal loss and structural inequality.

At the time it felt prescient; now it just feels too late.

To take a different perspective than ownership as "right to re-sell" or ownership as "the right to use in perpetuity," I think there is also value in considering ownership as responsibility to maintain those rights.

When one owns property, they get benefits from it, but they also have the responsibility to maintain the property or else it wastes away. Sometimes this incurs costs you wouldn't get with leasing, and sometimes it makes ownership more expensive than renting. But still I think that responsibility is a virtue in itself. Not everything should be consumable.

Interesting analysis. In it they say

  Worse, the burden [generating energy] increasingly falls on the buyer [data center developers]

I don't believe this is worse, but appropriate. The grid is a shared resource, used by enterprise and individuals. If some class of consumers demand an outsized share of that resource, they should pay an outsized share of its maintenance and development. I don't see that happening.

It's as if trucking companies flooded the highways with so many trucks that people couldn't commute to work anymore.

This is very "war on drugs" coded, but to extend the metaphor a bit:

Meta here is the heroin cartel. They're a publicly traded company, have offices all over the country, and have mountains of evidence sitting in moderately well secured cabinets. Why should the government go after users when it could more easily go after the producers?