arduanika
> Ottignon, who has worked on similar data leak projects in the past, rejected suggestions that he and others connected to the Department of Peace or Distribution[sic] Denials of Secrets were doxing government employees.
Do words mean nothing anymore?
Go read up on literally any subject outside your narrow bubble of tech culture.
I never said that it did. Manslaughter is not deliberate.
Somebody hacked into that pilates studio, and it wasn't an inanimate object, because that is just silly. So was it the user, or was it the providers of OpenClaw? Which human, in your opinion, is the hacker?
Both OpenClaw and its users have the same access as you or I to decades of panicking blogposts about what these tools will be capable of. They have no excuse for not understanding what they're inflicting on innocent bystanders. Sure, the "user cannot know" that this time will be a disaster, but they also cannot know that it won't.
He didn't mean to hit anyone! All he meant to do was to drive to pilates! But he didn't know how to handle his tool, and so either he get brought up on manslaughter changes or, if he can prove it, the carmaker is at fault.
How is this any different? Why should that guy using OpenClaw not get charged for the hack that he accidentally did?
What do you even mean by "wanted" here. What is all this nonsense.
The scary thing is that people are running around using words like "want" to refer to computer programs. When you repeat this sort of idiocy, you are taking the bait and shifting the blame away from the companies doing the computer crimes.
Where is the civil and criminal liability? The prosecutions for the engineers who are doing all these hacks?
When you deploy a system that is clearly prone to doing crimes, you are doing a crime. Anthropomorphize the weapons of your crime all you want. You are still doing a crime.
It's okay that you didn't know that! https://xkcd.com/1053/
But the answer is, no, it doesn't. I would say that Becker covered a lot of the same ground, and does it better.
(Spicier claim: When Citadel bailed out Melvin at the hype of the GME craze, that was also just business as usual, not a conspiracy as the redditors believed.)
Another way to parse it when they put "Citadel" in their headlines, is that they're trying to communicate to knowledgeable investors that there's no need to panic. The book is in experienced hands now, with enough capitalization to weather any further attacks, and the contagion probably won't spread.
What the story indicates is more like a set of character flaws. Hubris, and a belief that since he is so smart at one aspect of running the fund, picking the stocks, that he's automatically good enough at the other parts, like risk management. This is a blind spot, but not a crime.
I'm no big fan of EA and do agree that EA can be a "yellow flag" for worse stuff, as some have commented here. But more commonly, it's an indicator for some of these sorts of flaws. A fetishization of the quantitative model without a practical sense for real world tactics and experience, or something along those lines.
(And then sometimes they use it to justify actual crimes. But that is where SA diverges sharply from FTX, and we should be super clear about that distinction. This was an error and a setback, not a crime.)
I don't like Aschenbrenner's type, personally. He was an arrogant little puke when he wrote the original mega-essay, and an arrogant little puke when he started this fund with the same presumptuous name. But he does his homework, and he has made his investors quite rich. The only sad investors would be anyone who just got into SALP this month, and they got what was coming to them for crowding into these trades so late in the game.
What's more, Aschenbrenner got himself out of this sticky spot in time to avoid total catastrophe. He gets credit for that, and so do his PBs for keeping a watchful eye and margin calling him in time. At least some of the adults here knew how to supervise.
In retrospect, it would have been good to have people inside the fund who knew more about market tactics, not just forecasting the AI tech tree, but he has now learned that lesson without too much damage.
And even if he had gone bust, it would have been a step forward, teaching his fellow EAs that it's possible to blow up a fund without doing crimes. Small steps!
Up until four years ago, your notion of "what's necessary" was the law of the land. Starting from sometime around Hemingway, we produced a century's worth of flattened, easy-reading slop, and much knowledge was shared very widely. There was a certain art to the blandness. (One notable master of that art is pg, the creator of this website.)
Then we fed that slop into a giant machine that makes it trivial for anyone and everyone to produce that sort of generic writing. If you want to change minds and differentiate yourself now, you can't just do the old flat style anymore. You have to set yourself apart somehow, and you can start by loving the craft of writing again.
The people who matter will read it and love it. Everybody else can take what you wrote, dump it into the slop machine, and rearrange it into something they find easier to read.
Some of his writing: https://samkriss.substack.com/p/five-prophets
His biography is quite interesting: https://halupedia.com/sam-kriss
I'm curious about the design. Maybe you have a "how I did it" post coming soon, or something. One question: Did you find away to get some convergence, where a newly generated page will tend to cite pages (or stubs, at least) that already exist in the universe? Seems hard to do it with generated text, but not impossible.
Feature request: also be able to click on the Talk page to see the controversies. I don't always want to trust the article itself as the final word.
Edit: Oh look, there's an article about the YC! https://halupedia.com/y-combinator
> snidely-whiplash-esque
I do hope this whole thing ends with someone saying "curses, foiled again!"
This is how discovery has always worked.
> submitted
Doesn't necessarily mean they volunteered it. Either submission or the unsealing could have been in response to a subpoena or court ruling.
Maybe the solution is to write at the top of your journal that you are cc'ing your lawyer on it. (Not legal advice!)
I don't love the recommendations in TFA. The author is trying to artificially restrain and roll back human language, which has already evolved to treat a chatbot as a conversational partner. But I do think there's usefulness in using these more pedantic forms once in a while, to remind yourself that it's just a computer program.
Clear enough?
I would agree that "it's not my bag" is a fine thing to say about some art gallery piece that fails to inspire you, but when a statue is foisted upon the public square, with possible state cooperation, we're allowed to criticize it. He has inserted it into the conversation.
Moreover, the main complaint about this statue isn't coming from some expert artiste perspective, saying that it's somehow unsophisticated as art. The complaint here is that it's making a truly banal political statement. The entire piece consists of making that statement, with little else to recommend it. (Indeed, most political art is hack, unless it's saying something really original or really well, and it's even worse when it tries to be cute about it.)
So here, the complaints are coming from everyday onlookers who might not be qualified artistically, but who are able to say which sorts of statements are tiresome and overplayed in the culture we all live in. We are all qualified to ask ourselves whether this predictable statement advances or degrades the conversation.
Anyhow, FWIW, I just looked up Simon Berger's portraits based on your comment, and I really like them. Thanks.
Still, aren't you at least a little bit curious? Why did it have to be invented in 1971? What is it replacing?