JohnMakin

I hate to break it to you - but this current administration’s polling indicates that immigration policy is by far the most popular, among a pool of otherwise dismal polling categories. It’s polling 40+%. It also has overwhelming bipartisan support in the legislature.

They settled down on the shock and awe brownshirt tactics and have settled for just grabbing people quickly and quietly off the street, depending on a basically completely nonexistent court system to deal with the mistakes, and mass surveillance. Most won’t notice it at all. The surveillance started long before this administration - which isn’t a defense of it, just pointing out the entire system is rotten to the core.

“You will do as you are told. The market demands it.”

I agree, from my personal experience. AWS support at most tiers I’ve used is excellent. Granted, the larger account you have, the friendlier the service, but even when using it for smaller personal projects, I’ve always been pleased with the level of support and devotion to customer experience (except the console experience, that is not fun).

Don’t know to comment about the other areas of their business but AWS has always been excellent for me.

I read your comment as “amazon acts too responsibly to be a frontier lab,” and that worries me. That they even bothered to do all that stuff is good. That others don’t is bad.

Note that regulation differs quite a bit from enforcement. People sometimes confuse the former for the latter.

I am not even really in a place with any close or important races and I'm getting 10+ a day, as a data point for you.

You'll just end up on another list for the next election cycle. It's marketers - no one is forcing them to respect STOP replies, and a STOP reply is just another data point.

If you reply STOP, you just let them know you read their text and it's a number that will respond with an actual person behind it. I would not reply to it. It's very unlikely to do anything but make the problem worse.

Can anyone ELI5 the Class T stock structure and the rights it has? It seems like it has the ability to govern itself, but other than that, not terribly a lot?

> I fought ruthlessly.

I get it, but honestly, why? I have seen a few times someone being let go or about to and successfully negotiated out of it - but that person was always gone within a year anyway. The relationship is permanently damaged by that point, the employer cannot trust you're just buying time to get a new role and jump ship, and the employee will always have their guard up.

Why would a for profit company beholden to shareholders listen to anything but their own financial interests? Has this ever happened in recent memory?

Substitute anthropic/claude with exxon mobil/oil and see how crazy this sounds.

No one group or individual should be saddled with deciding what the “correct” human values should be. That’s literally what religion does.

A for profit company with shareholders designing technology they think will take over the world and run most if not all of humanity, is deciding for itself what human values should be doesn't set off any alarm bells?

I didn't want to keep editing my comment so I am replying to it, so much of this document makes me angry:

> Before we can align a model with human values, we must consider what those values should be.

Ok, so you believe that 1) this technology will become so powerful as to surpass humans in pretty much every imaginable way, so much so that you see it as an existential threat to humanity itself, and 2) that you see yourself as a responsible steward to avoiding bad outcomes, but 3), that you need to be the arbiter of what human values should be?

How fucking arrogant, pardon my language. My god.

> Pillar 2: AI safety is a universal practice backstopped by law. AI developers everywhere follow safe development and deployment practices, sustained by industry norms and enforced by regulation.

They so, so badly want to criminalize local models.

edited:

> Interpretability isn’t reliable enough to fully understand model intentions: Being able to read and understand a model’s internal reasoning reduces our reliance on what the models explicitly tell us about why they behaved in a certain way. This could be a useful tool for understanding models’ “thought processes” when they take unintended actions. But interpretability methods are not yet dependable or broad enough to be relied on in this way. As a result, we may miss our assessment of high-risk behaviors, or be able to investigate flawed reasoning only after an incident has occurred.

Just say you have no idea how or why they do what they do. Just the other day I saw it make an obnoxious, huge, irrelevant comment in a block of code - many lines more than the code change (which by the way, I have tons of instructions and hooks intended to stop this, it's maybe 95% reliable at best) - and told it quite plainly, "remove that comment."

What it did instead was remove most of the comment except one line, which was also irrelevant. When I noticed, I asked it why it did that when I explicitly stated otherwise and if it misunderstood what I meant. It happily chimed "No, I did not misunderstand your intent, I just thought this was better."

I can't trust that was the real reason so clearly I can't trust that whatever training causes this behavior results in a reliable tool.

This is so tone deaf in timing, it could only be microsoft, and it (weirdly) makes me feel better.