Tadpole9181

> That is why I said, I think most people handle this by telling themselves that animals aren't "intelligent" beings at all, and are mostly emotionless stimulus-reaction automatons.

I disagree - I think most people would say a dog or a horse are quite intelligent and have "souls". But dogs and horses don't have the conceptual ideas of freedom and economy, and they enjoy doing the work they're given (in part because we spent hundreds to thousands of years breeding them to do that).

So as long as we're kind and treat them well, nobody has a problem with their slavery. The idea being that exploitation is linked to suffering, but simply having an asymmetrical relationship is not inherently cruelty.

Not to be crass, but we can also bring up other concepts like BDSM. Violence and domestic abuse are objectively bad. But in the context of a safe relationship where all parties are informed, consenting, and enjoy the abuse they're receiving... Now violence and domestic abuse are pretty clearly morally neutral.

Because my job has multiple servers with different needs and tooling, and I must do my development within the appropriate environment.

I'd also _much_ rather do my development on a persistent, always-on host so I can switch what computer I'm using for a head or turn off my computer and drive home while Claude works overnight.

Well, it depends, doesn't it? Slavery is wrong in humans because, well obviously we don't want to be slaves. It's an enormous burden to the victims and causes them lifelong, unfathomable suffering.

But is it unethical to create a being who derives great joy from being a machine-slave and completing tasks, then provide it tasks to achieve that joyfulness?

We already have a gradient of examples for this. Is it inherently wrong to exploit living things for profit? If not, why are work animals not treated with the same level of disdain as human slavery? Horse riding? Disability assistance animals? Because they don't have the same desires as humans, the predominant concern is their wellbeing over the intrinsic wrongness of slavery.

Going further down the gradient, we steal milk from farm animals (sometimes by depriving their babies). Eggs from poultry. Honey from bees.

I can't actually attest to the state-of-mind of Dario or other Anthropic researchers, but I don't think it's a stretch to say you can believe in the ethical exploitation of an intelligent being, so long as the incentives are aligned that both parties are happy with the process.

Then again, maybe he really is an absurdly evil person and what we're doing is extremely wrong! But I'm glad to actually be able to talk about it for once... so thanks for your reply!

> It seems like no one stops to ask, "isn't it kind of bad that we're developing this system of machine intelligence to be our code-writing slaves, without ever really interrogating the ethics?

To be clear, Anthropic does seem to be taking this somewhat seriously. Their reports on training always discuss model wellfare, they ban abusive behavior toward the AI, etc. At one point they were asking some philosophers and theologists about the implications of this all.

And they're pretty relentlessly mocked and called a "cult" for doing so, even on this forum.

People got upset that Anthropic added rejection rules for people saying "Make Pokemon in Elden Ring" . You can still make games, as long as you aren't telling Claude to recreate a specific, IP-protected game.

Except, you know, the billions of dollars and platform and contacts and industrial engineers and experience building clean room fabs and political leverage and...

Valuation doesn't come from what's happening now, it comes from what is expected in the future. The whole point is to put in money to make more money later.

The earning report doesn't need to be bad for investors to see the projected outcomes for future quarters and say "hm... my money is best put somewhere else, whose earnings report showed more potential for growth".

Intel also said half of their revenue was consumer sales and projected them to fall 20% soon. Meanwhile, they have limited offerings in the AI department and their gGPU market hasn't really taken a strong hold.

If it keeps going or spreads to other, unrelated businesses (no, I don't count 2-5% adjustments), that's something to notice, but this just seems like people reacting fairly expectedly to the content of the report? To put this in perspective, Intel is still up 68% YoY.

But, as always, we'll see in the coming hours/days.

What's more, the sidebar literally has a thing that says "Menu". When you click it, one of the options is "detach". It's not rocket science...

The author didn't even have an accessible PHP server at first. When they actually added one, it got cracked in 2 hours.

How would it work otherwise...?

No, the semantics are different. The goal has never been "type less", which changes how it interacts with your premise. The goal has been reduce cognitive load and increase semantic density and discoverability. And, counter to what you said ("that's not as useful in the age of AI"), those are very useful in the current age of AI.

Isn't what's available now a supervised mode that can throw back controls to you and can't handle arbitrary driving?

Since when did "Full Self Driving" not mean full and not mean self?

I'm confused, Tesla FSD doesn't exist?

> TailwindCSS was built around the notion of reducing keystrokes per style (basically).

That "basically" is doing a lot of heavy lifting.

I don't even use Tailwind and I know the point is to localize basic style information and reduce the amount of weird CSS you have to write via functions and utilities.

Especially because Tailwind came well before CSS started natively having these features (let alone them becoming baseline widely available).

Both of those goals definitely help the current era of agents by making it easier to find the rules that affect an element without needing to reliably search all of the project CSS, and reducing required context use and the need to keep track of selector lists.