pinnochio

It's not fear mongering when they lay out a good argument, which is not what you're doing.

It's fascinating that you and nick49488171 both characterize this article in ways that no reasonable person would ("pearl clutching", "fear mongering") and have nothing substantive to say about the points made at all.

Drip with contempt, much?

I don't advocate for using either OpenAI or Anthropic. But you can say one is better while both are still unacceptable.

I don't see a viable case for arguing that they're equally bad, though you might quibble over the difference. (I couldn't care less how much these companies contribute to FOSS--that's small potatoes compared to everything else that's going on.)

My point is there are a lot of people invested in OpenAI's success who try to steer opinion around here, and they use arguments about ethics (or raise an eyebrow) for those purposes, not because they actually care about the ethics.

There was a rush of people flooding this thread to paint this post as new evidence against Amodei, when he's been upfront and consistent on these matters for a while. That doesn't mean anyone has to agree with him. But there's nothing new about his stance here. People suggesting that there is tells you what their motives are.

I agree it won't fix the problem, but marginal drops in labor supply and skill can still have an impact.

The OpenAI astroturfers jumped on this one. Their only interest is in trying to spin Anthropic as not meaningfully better to dissuade people from switching, not to get people to drop both companies altogether.

Why not replace the battery? It's fairly cheap.

I was able to thumb type at high speed and accuracy on the 3.5 inch iPhones. On modern iPhones, I produce more typos than ever, because apparently Apple thinks it knows which key I meant to hit better than I do, even with all the autocorrect and suggestions turned off.

I've banned social and don't use my phone much anymore, so it's less of an issue than it used to be, but it's really frustrating when I'm clearly hitting the right key and it insists on pretending I hit an adjacent key.

Not sure where you are, but you should be well within the return period?

> in this case it's simply a case of a edge they didn't test. It's not for lack of trying either.

Agreed. And because responsible driving is almost all edge cases, they shouldn't be held liable for any of them as long as they tried.

# of sticky non-paying users still gives them more investment juice than per user costs deducts, since we're still in the speculative phase.

You absolutely did, but are you not aware that cmd+` allows you to switch between windows?

Funny to read this after reading all the dismissive comments on https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47028923

Or, you know, they actually have a point, and framing them as just another partisan is an uncharitable response. Which, ironically, is typical of partisans.

This is your third top-level comment on this thread, when you're still in the edit window for the first. These are also pretty poor comments.

Did you have some prior beef with Chomsky?

Are you a sophist, or have you made any actual attempt to understand the concerns here?

You're quoting the NYT article. If you're going to criticize the Commission's language for being "vague and handwavy", you should quote the original source.

> Who are you to suggest they are less happy than otherwise?

Who are you to assume they always are? Once again, you're just dismissing the problems away.

> They took that decision voluntarily.

As if nobody in the history of the world took a deal that turned out to be bad for them. A voluntary choice does not inherently imply that the choice made them better off.

Regardless, you've completely ignored the last sentence of my original reply, but I'll try to spell it out for you. The neocolonialist objection does not boil down to, take these women's jobs away and make people in the corporation's home country do it. It is primarily a critique of the society that benefits from or depends on labor its own members consider unacceptable or beneath them. It is inherently exploitative by that society's own standards, and retaining such an economy is either unsustainable or incentivizes the perpetuation of the conditions which allow it to exploit. In other words, the US has a vested interest in making sure some people are always poor and desperate enough to do the jobs it doesn't want to do.

Maybe social media of the kind which creates this problem isn't sustainable or wise.

_you_ don't seem to understand what I wrote, or are not attempting to genuinely respond to it. But you've demonstrated a certain thickheadedness, potentially willful, so I can't say I was expecting better.

Who says this particular job is a necessary one?

Why does it have to be done?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'metaphysical' here, but I get the impression that you're dismissively trivializing real psychological problems by using that word.

An improvement in material conditions does not straightforwardly make up for these problems. What if they cause the viewer to commit suicide, or be so distraught they can no longer continue to work? People who do this work tend not to be able to do it for very long.

You also seem to be evaluating this by taking the current order of things for granted, as if it were not possible for this kind of thing to not be necessary in the first place. Quite a stunted imagination.

AFAIK, after all the hype around Bitcoin proved to be false, the last justification for owning it among people who can't think straight was as a systemic risk hedge, like gold, but this has also not borne out.

I don't doubt the faithful's ability to conjure up some other BS story for why it's worth owning, but there has to be something.

> In those days they did this by having physical public spaces for interaction, which we've since priced people out of through artificial scarcity of real estate via zoning laws.

IDK where to begin with this, because we clearly do have physical public spaces for interaction, whether free like parks or not free like coffee shops. People also hang out at each others' homes. Moreover, supply of public spaces increases when there's demand, much of which is being soaked up by social media.

You're also acting like we can't meaningfully distinguish between social media and other forms of communication and that we have to be all or nothing about it, which is a bewildering take. Even social media can be meaningfully distinguished in terms of design features. Facebook back when it was posting on friends' walls, no likes, comments, shares, friend/follower counts, or feeds, was fun and mostly harmless. LinkedIn was genuinely useful when the feed was nothing more than professional updates. They've all since morphed into toxic cesspools of social comparison, parasociality, polarization, disinformation, and other problems. Interoperability/federation doesn't solve those problems: most of the interoperable and federated solutions actually perpetuate them, because the problematic design features are part of the spec.

> But I wonder why Anthropic would go for something so clearly dishonest.

Mr. Dishonest accusing others of being dishonest.

> More importantly, we believe everyone deserves to use AI and are committed to free access, because we believe access creates agency.

I think you meant "psychological dependence", not agency.

This is correct.

Shortly after, AI-powered prosthetic hands that mimic your handwriting will write those 2 sentences for you.

You're explaining why they invest, not why they make pie-in-the-sky non-binding announcements. The point of those is to inflate the bubble and keep it going as long as they can.

No, that's not what he's doing.

It sounds like the first one, based on Gemini, will be more a more limited version of the second ("competitive with Gemini 3"). IDK if the second is also based on Gemini, but I'd be surprised if that weren't the case.

Seems like it's more a ramp-up than two completely separate Siri replacements.