huebnerob

Sad, if inevitable.

Wasn’t xcancel, sort of by definition, for people who have already left X?

What I can’t get over is that it’s very simple to just air gap a system off the network. Predownload any dependencies, then pull the proverbial Ethernet cable. There’s no reason why the testing they’re doing couldn’t have been designed in this way. Except, of course, it doesn’t allow this oops-didn’t-mean-to marketing “incident” to occur.

This person sounds insufferable. I mean, there’s lack of consideration for your fellow humans, and then there’s openly admitting that you “don’t care to understand” the reasons for why anyone feels differently from you.

Let’s say no to this kind of mentality.

That’d make sense, I don’t actually have any personal experience with Current so I was just going off the essay/site. But of course AI is quite good at making inordinately convincing versions of those.

Even with all these revelations, there’s still something so weird about this whole story. To go from crafting such a strong, principled app as Current to conjuring an AI-slop-fueled false narrative around an astrology app is such a wild swing in respectability.

It takes a very normal kind of company to judge you for how well you fit into the narrow box they’ve built for ‘employee’ that has no room for emotion or consideration of the person. In fact, I don’t know if there’s another kind of company.

I think you’re missing the fact that no one is saying not to be concerned, quite the contrary. OpenAI is using the threat of how powerful its models are to bolster support for regulation in which it’s one of the only players that’s allowed to use the capability. Conveniently, that would also be a moat that makes them more valuable to investors.

The marketing of their models as super dangerous has a direct link to the regulatory moat they’re pursuing.

The whole premise of this line of thought is faulty because everybody seems to assume that you're entirely either a door-open person or a door-closed person.

The point is choice. There are door-open and door-closed times of every day. In an open office, there is no choice, it's door-open always, and that sucks.

I think the novel concept here is taking a three month unpaid vacation every year, which I doubt is common or easy in any tech company.

Personally, I would sooner go for a four-day work week, which would probably be an easier sell to most companies. Similarly, I would be fine with a pretty sizable pay cut for the benefit.

Assault? Robbery? He'd disguise himself to commit basically any criminal act agains Fahim, not just murder.

Even weapons being brought could have been intended for threatening future violence.

It's incredibly hard to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, what someone's mindset is at any given time.

It's amazing to see the Olympian gymnastics routines the tech world is going through right now to try to make the Cybertruck anything but a hilarious testament to Tesla's hubris.

Not only is it the ugliest thing that's ever existed on four wheels, it's poorly thought out for its market segment. Range under load was not even mentioned, why do you think that is? Good luck towing anything with the base model without a supercharger visit every hour or two. Luckily my door panels and windows* are bulletproof though, because suburban California is basically a war zone right?

You’re well within your right to buy a Tesla, modify it to the moon and back, and use it independently however you want. I hate Tesla as a company and I’m a strong supporter of these rights, but I stop at claiming that businesses have an obligation to continue supporting a product with unknown arbitrary modifications.

To the extent that a product is designed to only operate efficiently (or at all) with continued access to manufacturer services, it’s probably a bad idea to disqualify yourself from that access. But there are only two ways to solve that, either A) disallow the sale of products that rely on first-party services, or B) requiring manufacturers to uphold their end of the services contract while you do god-knows-what with your end of it (the product). Neither of these is the clear moral high ground that hacker types seem to think they achieve in this argument.