blharr

The last point is pretty much exactly what you both seem to be saying. Families making less than median wage with kids who have proven their superiority over those circumstances get charged nothing.

Except very few of the cards that are so expensive are even used in the card game for real battles. And the shiny / fancy ones have plain counterparts that would do the same thing in a battle.

The value is purely artistic. Which is its own value, to be fair. But people aren't buying these expensive cards to use them in the game. They just want them for the art (or simply the rarity)

IQ doesn't measure writing _at all_ does it?

The power isnt really decentralized when you see that the internal AI models are superior than anything you can self host, and the right to use those can be stripped away at any time.

I really doubt they're doing it in some kind of "AI has feelings" sense as the article seems to imply.

I'd instead imagine that if you throw abusive language at it for long enough, the model will start to reply back in that same manner. Anthropic would face backlash from out of context screenshots of "look what Claude is saying to me" and this somewhat reduces that risk.

This is covered exactly in the post right under that sentence. Why just restate it?

>they weren't trying to scoop a mathematician they were just trying to scoop a competitor

Well. Obviously, yes. But in doing so they still DID scoop out a mathematician in a very unethical way.

In doing so they showed that they basically have a huge gun they can point at X work you care about and develop, and can cut you across the finish line. And take credit for it. Obviously this already _existed_, but is just much more significant because even a rumor can be converted into a complete takeover of a discovery.

> They're not interested, not the kind of entity that can care about theoretical mathematics. These dudes take home 7-8 figure salaries, they solve a Millennium Prize problem then pretty quickly move past it.

I get your point, they don't really care about solving all the maths problems. But they're still going to solve them for clout and profit motives. Up until it stops wow-ing people... at which point they will have likely decimated the frontier of the field.

And this is kind of the root of the entire concern. They will move into the forest and completely steamroll all the problems, then declare victory and move on, leaving only pavement and asphalt behind.

Git becomes a lot easier to understand once you learn its "hidden" interactive flags

Like git rebase -i as well

> I recommend to stop being condescending

Said in perhaps, the most condescending way possible

You can prune a plum tree but you can't plum a prune true

"Let my soul die with the Philistines" being the literal translation?

Sure but with how many people who use AI without disclosing that they are... and the profit incentive it'd only need one person to make a chat focused on non-watermarking that makes it trivial.

Im pretty sure said services already exist, making it so your writing doesnt sound or look like AI... but the real problem is surprisingly that we don't even care if the output is AI

Its weird to me that this is supposed to be THE end goal. Having an agent that does "everything" for you sounds like no paradise. It sounds depressing.

Maybe there is value in expending effort and actual creativity.

Sure, but why doesn't said business partner just give a requirement to the AI to do the business partner's own job? Since it is hypothetically superhuman at fulfilling requirements at such a point...

PMs seem pretty easy to replace. In fact, given any single role to fixate on, it's probably replaceable