Tadpole9181

Perhaps I'm being overly generous to the parent's point, but it stands to reason that we make a lot of choices of where and how much trust we give away. This is just another one of those points.

She goes from the confident pilot speak to panicked reports to starting to scream and hyperventilate, while doing her best to recover and communicate what's happening to the tower. At some point you hear them acknowledge that it's too late and they're all going to die. And then one last scream before suddenly cutting out.

It's just that gut-wrenching empathy and feeling of helplessness.

I would personally say that people should listen to this stuff, though. Life is hard and fragile, and even though it's hard, empathizing with this suffering makes sure we understand the real costs of our mistakes.

I saw way too many dismiss a million deaths by COVID. So many people bat their eyes at 100 people dying in a plane crash now. If they heard the recordings of these kinds of last moments, I think we'd be at less risk of our (moral/procedural) standards slipping.

And how very "hacker news" of you to discourage someone from playing with SOTA technology in unique ways.

I disagree - I think most people would say a dog or a horse are quite intelligent and have "souls". But dogs and horses don't have the conceptual ideas of freedom and economy, and they enjoy doing the work they're given (in part because we spent hundreds to thousands of years breeding them to do that).

So as long as we're kind and treat them well, nobody has a problem with their slavery. The idea being that exploitation is linked to suffering, but simply having an asymmetrical relationship is not inherently cruelty.

Not to be crass, but we can also bring up other concepts like BDSM. Violence and domestic abuse are objectively bad. But in the context of a safe relationship where all parties are informed, consenting, and enjoy the abuse they're receiving... Now violence and domestic abuse are pretty clearly morally neutral.

I'd also _much_ rather do my development on a persistent, always-on host so I can switch what computer I'm using for a head or turn off my computer and drive home while Claude works overnight.

But is it unethical to create a being who derives great joy from being a machine-slave and completing tasks, then provide it tasks to achieve that joyfulness?

We already have a gradient of examples for this. Is it inherently wrong to exploit living things for profit? If not, why are work animals not treated with the same level of disdain as human slavery? Horse riding? Disability assistance animals? Because they don't have the same desires as humans, the predominant concern is their wellbeing over the intrinsic wrongness of slavery.

Going further down the gradient, we steal milk from farm animals (sometimes by depriving their babies). Eggs from poultry. Honey from bees.

I can't actually attest to the state-of-mind of Dario or other Anthropic researchers, but I don't think it's a stretch to say you can believe in the ethical exploitation of an intelligent being, so long as the incentives are aligned that both parties are happy with the process.

Then again, maybe he really is an absurdly evil person and what we're doing is extremely wrong! But I'm glad to actually be able to talk about it for once... so thanks for your reply!

To be clear, Anthropic does seem to be taking this somewhat seriously. Their reports on training always discuss model wellfare, they ban abusive behavior toward the AI, etc. At one point they were asking some philosophers and theologists about the implications of this all.

And they're pretty relentlessly mocked and called a "cult" for doing so, even on this forum.

The earning report doesn't need to be bad for investors to see the projected outcomes for future quarters and say "hm... my money is best put somewhere else, whose earnings report showed more potential for growth".

If it keeps going or spreads to other, unrelated businesses (no, I don't count 2-5% adjustments), that's something to notice, but this just seems like people reacting fairly expectedly to the content of the report? To put this in perspective, Intel is still up 68% YoY.

But, as always, we'll see in the coming hours/days.

Since when did "Full Self Driving" not mean full and not mean self?

That "basically" is doing a lot of heavy lifting.

I don't even use Tailwind and I know the point is to localize basic style information and reduce the amount of weird CSS you have to write via functions and utilities.

Especially because Tailwind came well before CSS started natively having these features (let alone them becoming baseline widely available).

Both of those goals definitely help the current era of agents by making it easier to find the rules that affect an element without needing to reliably search all of the project CSS, and reducing required context use and the need to keep track of selector lists.

In about three days I can go from an idea to a fully polished internal tool, implemented in approximately 150,000 lines of code.

I've given up on line-by-line reviews in those projects.

2. A product is one small part of a whole. Machines, who hold no liability and have no money and can't interact with the physical world, must slow down to interact with us at this level. But because that leaves us with all the actual risk (instead of being as distributed amung professionals), humans are somewhat paranoid and slow down even more than normal.

I think this section misses the mark.

The biggest problem is that for a good 12 hours nobody knew what was going on. All we knew was there is a critical vulnerability affecting all of us that allows RCE somehow and we have to have vulnerable servers open for potentially even longer.

Everyone who knew was being hush hush, only chiming in to say "nah, those workarounds don't work, you're fucked".

So when people started spreading rumors of PoC or when the Cloud flare CTO posted that they were actively seeing exploit traffic - what are we supposed to do?

We aren't sitting there trying to PoC with Claude - we're subscribing to a bunch of news feeds and twitter accounts while we try to prepare for the patch and close down what we can. We're calling executives saying "hey, how much money do we lose by being offline for 6 hours?"

So even if this isn't as easily exploitable as first believed, no one could have known that, because those with the ability to calm us down were seemingly choosing to stoke the fires.

This is (IMO) a failure of the potentially outdated disclosure system that's supposed to protect us. And at the very least a trial run of how the world may react next time, if it really is that bad.

Was anyone under the impression that AI would, in its very first attempt at biological research, suddenly be able to get answers without having to need physical follow-through on its leads? Even if AI had a hypothetical cure for cancer, it would need a human with cancer and a biolab and governmental approval to actually do anything with it.

The nature of biology makes the feedback loops much larger and more expensive, which means the AI has to follow the "normal" collaborative scientific process instead of being able to hunker down in its proverbial study and work all night.

Usually, attacks are at least conditional and require something that weakens security guarantees.

Y'all know React and Vue frameworks still use HTML, CSS, and JS, right? We're using the same thing, with a thin layer of helpers around mounting components and managing their lifetimes...

And as much as I appreciate Gabe, there are enormous financial incentives that make me uncomfortable giving yet more power and dominance to Valve. Especially as he gets older.

So this is a space where games journalism has a space to get back in and try to innovate solutions to a real and growing market problem.