estearum

> The fact that they're a repeated part of the game and not occasional incidents is very, very bad.

As someone who has had multiple concussions in other sports, the impacts in youth football are absolutely sufficient to cause concussions and more minor (but still cumulatively damaging) trauma. The fact that they're a repeated part of the game and not occasional incidents is very, very bad.

Requiring a child to play football should be actual child abuse, and even allowing it should be frowned upon the way that letting a child play with a blowtorch is.

How would a futures market fix that...?

Okay, well if you weren't suggesting you can predict the outcome based on this slice of data, then "projectile" is a really stupid analogy. The defining characteristic of a projectile is that you can do this.

And the analogy is literally not useful in any way whatsoever.

It implies that you can know Anthropic's outcome from this slice of data. That is literally not true in any way at all.

Like it's not even remotely or analogously or roughly true.

Anthropic behaves like a high-growth business with a quarter of slowing growth. It does not behave like a baseball. Any conclusions you draw from analyzing it as a baseball will be de facto faulty because the two systems are nothing like one another. The most basic assumption of projectile analysis (that energy is not added in-flight) is the opposite of the most basic assumption of a business (that they are actively profit-seeking).

The analogy adds nothing except ambiguity at best and active falsehoods at worst.

Sure they can work very similarly. But they can also not behave very similarly.

Businesses can have stalled growth, degrading margins, etc. etc. and then simply... reverse it. They can raise more money. Their competitors can get regulated out of existence. They can do a literal infinite number of things that cannot be factored into a model like "a projectile."

That's why the projectile analogy is stupid as fuck. It suggests you can presuppose the conclusion by presupposing the conclusion.

Bad, misleading, and uninteresting ones, yeah pretty much.

Presupposing where they are on "the" S curve is itself presupposing the conclusion, duh.

Most businesses are stacks of S curves (except when they're not).

Correct. Which is why making a physical claim about a 2nd order derivation of a super dynamic system is goofy and misleading.

The analogy fails at precisely the thing it's attempting to do.

It's saying "like a projectile, you can predict the outcome based on just a sliver of data"

That is literally not true.

You're now talking about the expected trajectory.

Really, you're talking about expectations ("expected") of the expected ("price") trajectory (actual business performance).

If the above comment was intending to say "chart go up steeper make price higher, chart go up less steep make price lower", then no dispute there. But that carries virtually zero predictive information about whether the business will achieve "escape velocity" (whatever that means).

You absolutely cannot predict Anthropic's fate based on their growth rate slowing from Q2 to Q3. Obviously.

You can predict the resting place of a projectile with information like this. You cannot do so with a business, especially one as dynamic as Anthropic in an environment as dynamic as today's.

Businesses aren't projectiles

How would they know?! They've never read a book!

People are very watchful of the coming pop we all know is coming...?

It's not great when finance people are openly talking about trying to time the top.

The can of whoop-ass the entire Republican party is about to take at every level on every ballot in every state might just be sufficient to alert some Senators that it's time to jump ship.

Obviously Republicans will win a large number of these elections, but even their victories will be a source of great alarm.

The data center buildout is doing a great job of propping up economic metrics, but not really of driving the real economy.

What would Swalwell know?

Swalwell was targeted by Fang Fang in 2012 when he was on Dublin, California's city council and running for his first term in the House of Reps.

When he was by the FBI to Fang Fang's ties, he immediately cooperated with the FBI's investigation and did exactly what they requested.

Thinking Swalwell made any mistake whatsoever is a great shibboleth for a Twitterbrained midwit.

> I don't think any of them are in a position to allow or not allow their competitors to make mistakes.

Of course they are, by your own hypothesis. You believe it makes sense for the other parties to engage in this behavior. If it makes sense, then they will do that reliably, and one entity can just defect and stand above the rest.

> The point that you're not getting here is that the advantage comes from actually being seen to make mistakes

Ah yes, the ol' "I just do retarded shit so people think I'm a genius" trick. Who could possibly doubt the strategic genius or umm... existence... of such a strategy.

> Again you're not getting it.

No, I understand it completely. Obviously regulatory capture only works if it in reality inflicts asymmetric costs on other parties.

Well I can see why you're failing to understand the problem when you don't even understand the fact pattern. Have you tried reading the MTER / Redwood reports? Or the OpenAI report?

Right, so why would that not be a justification for essentially unbounded GoF research?

I don't see how the "you should want to know all avenues of exploit" goal is different depending on how many avenues of exploit there are

"Perfect?"

More perfect than simply not making mistakes and allowing your competitors to make mistakes (or to, apparently, fake mistakes in their own attempt to get regulated)?

Regulators reading OpenAI's 99th mea culpa: "Ah yes, well I bet they've figured it out this time! We should regulate everyone else!" Lol what a joke.

Do we need DOJ to balance between every ideology in order to exist?

We need 50/50 Republicans and Democrats

50/50 Commies and Fascists

50/50 Totalitarians and Anarchists

50/50 Pro-lifers and pro-choicers

50/50 gun fanatics and gun haters

50/50 Dog people and cat people

50/50 People who like asparagus and people who don't

What exactly are you proposing here?

I have a simple proposal: competent people can apply for the job, and so long as they execute their duties without prejudice, they get to keep the job. It's really that simple!

No one is confused about how regulatory capture works. We're confused by the allegations that labs are deliberately producing safety problems in order to achieve regulatory capture.

Repeatedly blowing up your own munitions factory is not a good way to prevent other people, but not yourself, from running a munitions factory. Obviously.

Obviously the far better solution is to blow up other people's factories, or make allegations of unsafe conditions at other factories, and repeatedly demonstrate excellence and safety within your own.

Here, award-winning gymnasts are alleging that the frontier labs are simply choosing not to do that, and instead choosing to have explosions and minor fires every few days at their own factories, many of which they try to hide (and probably many more of which they successfully do hide). Believing such astounding bullshit is a testament to the power of motivated reasoning and the conspiratorial mindrot that now plagues our civilization.

I didn't ask "are most virologists terrified of gain-of-function research the way the public is"

I'm not even necessarily against GoF research, and I mostly agree with all of your points.

I'm asking about GP's logic.

Do you apply this same logic to GoF research increasing contagiousness or lethality of viruses? Is there any limit to this argument, and if so how do we define it?

You know that lions actually do maim and kill their handlers all the time right?

That's not the claim above.

The claim is that the exact same evidence is (allegedly) deliberately produced in order to portray opposite, mutually incompatible things to different people.

And these are mutually incompatible in the "second order chaos" sense, where the very act of convincing one party actually effectuates the opposite behavior in the other party.

If they "do that all the time," surely you can provide some concrete examples?

If they had the choice (i.e. this is all just a ruse), can you explain why they wouldn't just directly demonstrate that open weight models are unsafe (e.g. by pointing to a market forming for abliterated models) and separately demonstrate that their own models are safe?

Imagine thinking that repeatedly demonstrating your inability to control your own models is "a stunt to convince the government that only they can be trusted to operate it"

Truly spectacular gymnastics. I'll give it an 8/10.

Why is that a significant detail? The models will increasingly be trained with every piece of data they can find.

Part of the problem is that all these models have essentially every skill and personality simultaneously, just sitting latent inside them.