ahsillyme

I thought Carbon for composable stood well on it's own marketing. As did Argon, for impervious. Next to one another the pair comes off utterly cockeyed and sleazy.

I think that's aspirational, whereas the censoring of training data can reasonably be operationalized. Whether it'll work out in practice and produce something of value, I have no clue. [Edit: sorry, I see what you mean. Yes, I concede that rebuttal.]

Yep. I'd be fine with having to work around that, that to be honest.

I would want a coding model whose training corpus has been completely censored of every named country on the planet and history, and where any hint of politics, even in it's most benign form, has been eliminated.

Tired of tribalism, even if emergent and unintentional. Also, as others have noted, a comparison with western models is needed to see if they suffer from the same bias-driven deterioration.

Tangentially: The costs could be justified even if it doesn't turn into profit, no? Because if the price of good, robust software plummets, then that itself would be a a solid return on investment for the world.

Assuming they can achieve funding without IPO probably yes. But if they can't there's always the dilemma that "if [good guys] won't do it then [bad guys] will". I'd like to think that the leadership at anthropic is principled even if the actions of the company as a whole has been less than stellar morally speaking. I'd be curious to see their moral calculus transparently laid out in public.

This is weird. I can't think of a better compliment that is simultaneously safer. They'll always trail on data generation then, no? So I can't see the point. Best case for moonshot they get to lie about benchmarks that are gamed regardless, is how I see it.

I think the way to understand the objection here is that it's rhetorical flair (grandparent's dictum) that feels like it's intent is to assuage -- because it's a conditional that is implicitly loaded with an assumption about the current state of affairs ("not today") --, but that reasonably speaking, already things are bad enough to make such a conditional disingenuous. "Maximally evil" is just stressing it, though not technically true, because obviously things can always get worse. Personally, (and the reason I reply here since it hasn't been raised elsewhere in the thread), I have always objected to said conditional but on grounds of the principle that it leaves an opening to argue against what should be an absolute right (the standard for excellent conduct should not be "don't worry, we're not the worst so it's alright when we do it").

I find the language less impervious than has been suggested generally, but that it's reasoning is astonishingly, unbelievably bad. Not sure why the focus has been only on language, am I the only one seeing this?

Happened by this wonderful resource by accident.

Only way to improve safety of software is the ability to find the flaws of said software. If they did lower safeguards, it's probably positive for software safety standards.