cooper_ganglia

Tesla, Falcon 9, Starlink, Mechazilla, SolarCity, Colossus, Neuralink, Starship, Optimus...

Claude has an "End Conversation" tool that it can trigger on it's own, forcing your interaction to a close based on it's own feelings towards the conversation.

I have no idea how this wasn't the end of Anthropic's positive public perception.

These are always exciting, even if it's more of the same. I love that we live in a time where we can regularly watch huge rockets launch into space with intentional issues just to see what might go wrong and how best to monitor/solve them.

Congratulations, everyone, at being alive at the best point in human history so far!

This is the EXACT evolution of this product that I've wanted. For simple tasks on some of my desktop machines, I don't want to mess with SSH or remoting into them, I just want to tell an AI agent what I need, let it build a plan that I press "Approve" on, and let it rip. This is the ClawdBot killer!

"Because I have a job, it is now impossible for me to raise my children. I have to outsource this to a council of legislators because I'm simply too busy!"

Bad argument, bad outcomes. These are exactly the "bad parents" I was referring to in my original comment. The government HAS no responsibility in raising your child, but they would LOVE to change that. It's absolutely imperative for the human race that that does not happen.

The politicians that want to identify everyone capitalize on organic desire for these proposals in the form of fear-mongering and "Think of the children!"

Citizens that want these laws are unthinking drones who don't want to raise their children, and instead want legislators to do it for them.

Politicians that want these laws are the people who, ideally, want to track your every move online for a multitude of reasons, not least of which are censoring speech and controlling narratives.

THe government shouldn't be raising anyone's children, that's what parents are for. If you're a bad parent, your kids will get access to bad things and could become an adult failure.

The future of your family and your legacy is up to you, not the government. We don't need age verification to restrict the social darwinism of raising children.

From the article:

> Specifying an objective to the model is not enough. Directing how the work is constructed is what counts.

> Surely you are responsible for the consequences of what you do, no matter how indirect?

No, that’s preposterous. You are not responsible for the actions of others simply because your actions put them in a place to perform said actions. That seems like a very stressful way to go through life.

Nor should you be burdened with that.

This is why we elect competent (hopefully) leaders to worry about these things for us. Mob rule democracy about every national secret would mean they’re not secrets for very long!

No. Their comment was: “Any AI researcher who continues to work here is morally compromised.”

But, “…doing this kind of work with the federal government.” is added context that was not there and is based on your own interpretation.

The language of the parent comment charges that simply working at a company that is engaging in this makes one complicit in an immoral act, and the complicity itself is immoral. I disagree with all of that.

Literally the parent comment:

>Any AI researcher who continues to work here is morally compromised.