gretch

There was a guy named Cypher who betrayed the humans and cut a deal with the robots to live in the matrix as a rich guy. He fully accepts the steak he eats is not “real” but he enjoys it nonetheless

> For nearly all tasks, I want the fastest and smartest AI model.

This is not nearly true for everyone else in the world.

For example, think about the world in ~2021 pre-LLM. Would anyone say the sentence "I only want the fastest and smartest humans working on my project"?

No of course not. Most people don't want to pay $10 million dollar salary to the best programmers in the world. They prefer to pay $200k salary to a median programmer and that's good enough for their ecommerce website.

Yes this is all true.

So then the problem is that Anthropic seems hypocritical when they knowingly insert themselves into this chain, and then complain about people down-chain from them.

To remedy the negative impressions (if they even care to do so) they should do 1 of 2 things: 1) stop complaining about it 2) stop distilling other people's work

I'm American and I enjoy hosting at my house. I do it often (imo).

I think some of the stats reviewed in this post are crazy because it is specifically "did it 12+ times in the last year", which means if you only did it 11 times, you simply register as a 'false' according to this modeling.

The graphs with once per year are much more reasonable.

I'm sure these stats still tell you something about life in america, but I feel like this bar is set so extremely high. I'm saying this as someone who LOVES hosting - I don't want to do it 12 times a year. (maybe it's because I set too high of a quality bar for myself?)

When people say “the problem is that our economic system…”, I’ve stared to simply ask, “which economic system is the one where you do not need a job?”

You made the assumption that it was fairly valued before and the loss was a "true" loss.

But possible it could have been over-valued before, unbeknownst to low-information external investors. After all, right now it as a PE of 450+. (Google PE is 17, Meta PE is 27, Tesla PE is 330)

The stock dropping on CEO departure had nothing to do with his personal performance, and everything to do with the information that he revealed on the way out. Why would the CEO leave a rising and successful company on the verge of innovation?

And thus tying it back to pay - people should be paid based on their output and their personal performance, not based on simply serving as a signal which any warm body can do. That said, I don't think truly amazing CEOs are overpaid, e.g. steve jobs of old.

> This isn't the gotcha you think it is

You really presume what I think about it huh?

> It isn't clever

Never said it was

> easiest way to trivialize someone else's moral convictions

Did not trivialize it at all. Regardless of what's "right" or "wrong" we are definitely in the territory of "advanced ethics" and not "trivial/beginner ethics"

> Wrong. I specifically stated I hold myself to a higher bar than I held anyone else. I took actions to diminish my contribution, and eventually left. I do not begrudge other Americans who did less than I did.

This is not what I was trying to say.

First let me state the assumption I made: You think that working at Anthropic/OpenAI is morally bad because that's the parent thread, and you made a comment about how somethings are good enough and other things are too bad to tolerate.

So yes, you hold yourself to the bar of I should not work at Anthropic/OpenAI - but the point is that this bar is convenient to hold yourself to.

Did you "took actions to diminish my contribution, and eventually left. I do not begrudge other Americans who did less than I did."

Or did you simply never work there, maybe never even had an offer to work there.

> but I don't think you can reasonably expect that of paying taxes at all.

You should beware that you've rationalized everything you do as good enough, and everything that other people do is morally questionable.

Have you set the bar for what is 'reasonable' to be extremely convenient for your own circumstances?

Personally I think if you were going to make a poster for a Japanese themed spring festival, and you did NOT include some sakura, you completely misunderstood the assignment.

Your promotional poster for a community gathering should not be subverting the western gaze on Japanese culture, or any other concept from art criticism 101.

It's supposed to get average people in your neighborhood to glance at it for 5-10 seconds and say, "cool looks like a good time"

It is because you know this and you continually choose to keep using it.

It’s be like if your 2001 BMW car was super fuel efficient, and then for whatever reason the 2028 model guzzled gas and you chose to buy it anyway

Just because the thing you did once upon a time was efficient, does not mean you have a lifetime pass to engage with it no matter the updated circumstances

This really isn't a new problem.

That's why the mantra in running restaurants has been "location, location, location".

Location was a proxy for marketing and attention, based on foot traffic. So yes it does need to be updated to be the 2026 version for what gets peoples' attention on trying your new thing.

I think almost all good restaurateurs know that. The rest, who hyper focus on food quality, are tragically doomed.

source: my parents were in the restaurant business

I agree

I only wish I could convince some humans in my life to slow down and do things with care.

This is not the bar for societal adoption, and we can already see a demonstration that it is false.

A waymo is basically an industrial strength robot. It operates among inherently unpredictable humans already. There is no guarantee that it will never, ever hurt a human.

And yet in many cities around the world, you can call a waymo and ride it and society accepts it.