graboy

Wow, a blanket!

Even if these companies become the new American zaibatsus, that doesn't mean they aren't still operating underneath the US government and its laws and system, you don't magically escape that.

That and everyone should be taking a statin.

You have a misunderstanding. Watermarking does not bias the responses in any way. How is this possible?

Before: "He leaped at the chance" - 33%. "Jumped at the opportunity" - 66%.

After: "He leaped at the chance" - 33%. "Jumped at the opportunity" - 66%.

But if you refresh your response from Anthropic 100 times:

Before: "Jumped at the opportunity" He leaped at the chance" "Jumped at the opportunity"

After: "He leaped at the chance" "He leaped at the chance" "He leaped at the chance"

The second one is detectable as being watermarked.

davmre has a good explanation that's more in-depth.

I've thought about this. Aristotle doesn't draw as hard of a line between right and wrong behavior or advocate for specific actions, with the right action depending on circumstance, and to finding the middle path. Traditional religions might be a bit more hardline, with specific rules or commandments. It's easier to identify with belonging to a particular group when the line between belonging and not belonging is more crisp and defined by particular practices.

Would love to know if others have takes.

It's more social, the translation of political is coming from polis; man is by nature meant to be part of a city or community.

Yeah I mean, if you and I were to play the word-guessing game where you needed to guess what next word I'm thinking of, there's always uncertainty in your guess because it's a game of partial information - you can't fully observe my inner state. But that doesn't mean you couldn't evolve a strategy that spends a really long time thinking and analyzing to get asymptotically close to the best guess. There's no limit on that intelligence.

Eric Hoffer would agree with this take.

I kinda agree with you and I understand your point but I also think there is a social-ethical reality that if a doctor finds something they must treat it. The two options are 1. doing nothing, or 2. reducing cancer risk and you get unnecessary biopsies.

You're thinking of this as there being an objective positive utility for not dying of cancer and a objective negative utility for biopsies, and there being an objective optimal "rational" tradeoff that the best radiologist can optimize for to get their "nearly certain" detection threshold.

But frankly - the tradeoff for the value of a human life is perhaps the most uncertain thing one could choose. It lies in the eyes of the patient if the worry and time associated with a false detection is worth their reduced chance of death. The ethical uncertainty expressed in the OP - are these unnecessary biopsies worth it - is warranted.

IIRC, a lot of design went into making it so that you can disable parts of this chip selectively.