whalabi

They messed up the title. The title tag on the page is "Patrick Stewart’s Jean-Luc Picard taught us what good men do with power | Vox"

I imagine it was too long and because he just died they chose to use his name.

Sci fi is not for "thought leadership".

In this case it's like a what if: what if humans were the best they could be.

And that couldn't be less silly.

I have plans to make something that is eerily similar to what you described at the start.

One other aspect I was thinking of was limiting sharing to friends of friends only so it's more a community than a toxic clusterf

.

For at least the hugging face incident, the agents did indeed decide entirely on their own to hack. It's documented extensively by independent researchers.

In theory, if Altman or Musk want some highly confidential data for their models, they could set a swarm free at it then claim the agents were operating without authorization

I've definitely had it behave exactly like this at times and it's infuriating. I think it depends on your codebase.

Is it just me or is this clearly written by Claude?

The last heading is literally "The honest version"

But otherwise throughout it just reads like Claude wrote it.

No, taxes are taxes and theft is theft.

Taxes are, in the case of a country like the United States, a legally sanctioned, representative approved (indirectly voter approved) means of supporting the needs of the nation/state as a whole.

Theft is distinguished from say, gifting money by consent. In a democracy mechanisms exist for our representatives to make decisions according to the consent of the people, to an extent.

You presumably live in a democracy so you presumably necessarily agree to abide by the laws of your nation which involve being governed by your democratically elected representatives.

Same. I don't think I have many words that get misinterpreted at all, though pretty almost always does (as pet).

The article seems mostly about noticing a fun coincidence backed by anecdotal evidence, except I’m currently going through the same thing, so I’m lending the theory more weight. (The elevators were always fine; now, two years later, they’re constantly out, and the garage door is busted for the first time.)

My thought was that it could plausibly be that renting goes in cycles: the building is desperate for renters, so they fix everything, advertise, and so on. Then, once they’re full, the company cuts costs by reducing maintenance. Then they lose renters, and the cycle continues.

However, I then thought about my last two buildings, which were cheaper, and things were just broken right from the start, so… who knows.