ToValueFunfetti

What does the one have to do with the other? If I tell you I committed a crime and an independent investigator tells you I committed a crime, why would you need to know my income and outlays to decide whether I can commit crimes?

This has happened: https://github.com/leanprover/lean4/issues/14576

What does verbal violence mean non-hyperbolically to you?

>Verbal abuse (also known as [...] verbal violence [...]) is a type of psychological abuse that involves the use of oral or written language directed to a victim. Verbal abuse can include the act of harassing, labeling, insulting, scolding, rebuking, or excessive yelling towards an individual.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verbal_abuse

>even invents concerns to downplay as if Jasmine had reported on them. In particular, you said that noise is a non-issue – that's not discussed at all in the interview (CMD+F "noise" – zero results).

Huh? How about CMD+F on the comment I replied to? My comment was intended to argue against that, not to summarize a source. I cited the interview towards A.) blue collar workers are getting a good deal B.) localities are getting a lot of tax revenue in return C.) people don't oppose data centers out of fear for their jobs D.) people are primarily upset over secrecy caused by NDAs E.) those NDAs also prevent governments from fighting misinfo.

Separately, I argued that the electricity price, water, and noise issues are not actual problems. I didn't intend to imply that the interview proved that, and, in fairness to you, I could have made that more clear.

Per your objection to C. above, poor phrasing on my part. I meant "not top-of-mind".

>they had real concerns like grid strain, gas generation[...], ugly facilities, temporary jobs, subsidies, secrecy, and an unequal distribution of the benefits.

I didn't say these things were false. I mentioned pollution and subsidies as real, and I highlighted secrecy as the primary issue. Otherwise, I was responding to the parent's claims. My point was never that every complaint one could make about data centers is unfounded; it was that the complaints I was replying to were (except for job loss, which I do believe is a legitimate concern, but which I don't think many agree with me about).

>I find it strange that you're putting more stock in a substack journalist from the Bay area who went to Wisconsin to figure out why people are doing something, than the people who live there and are doing that thing.

??? How is it wrong to trust a person who interviewed people about what those people believe over someone who does not even claim to be involved? How about, instead of a substack, she provide any reason at all we should take her word over someone who talked to people who live there? As far as I can tell, you give the commenter as much credibility as the journalist because she agrees with you and lets you say "bingo". You can find my epistemics as strange as you like, they sure beat that.

I read that comment as well at the time and was taken aback. After such a lengthy discussion where Jasmine went and talked to the people doing the disagreeing over multiple weeks and reported her findings, Rachel replies that no, this is wrong, her presumably pre-existing belief is correct, and she cites nothing at all in support of this. Due respect seemed lacking despite claims to the contrary.

Likewise, I am taken aback that you, having apparently read this lengthy interview to find it in disagreement with my summary, elected instead to quote Rachel's unsupported comment dismissing the whole thing. Why not just quote the journalist disagreeing with me instead of some rando disagreeing with her? Does Rachel have a reputation that I'm unaware of?

Just read this interview[1] the other day that contends that the blue collar workers, or at least their union leaders, are thrilled about the data center boom. There are loads of these projects underway and they show no sign of stopping, so the fact that it's only work for a few years per building hardly matters. Plus, the pay is great because the projects have to fight each other for labor. It also says that localities competed for these projects because of the substantial tax revenue they'll bring in for the communities.

Separately, while electrity usage is a valid concern with respect to pollution, data centers are not really driving electric costs up for residents, with (maybe?) a couple exceptions. Noise is likewise a non-issue by-and-large with (definitely existent) rare exceptions. And the water usage issue is totally invented; data centers use a tiny fraction of the water other industries that would otherwise occupy industrially-zoned land use.

You didn't mention it, but the interview also contends that the "this will take our jobs" angle that gets passed around here as a reason isn't on anybody's mind.

Instead, it seems that the AI companies used NDAs to prevent localities from efficiently pricing their deals. That's obviously sketchy on its own and worthy of attack, plus as a bonus it prevents governments from making statements to clarify that the populist narratives that surround the things and are, bluntly, false.

[1] https://www.natesilver.net/p/why-does-everyone-hate-data-cen...

I appreciate the admission. Please try to participate productively in the future.

This has nothing to do with agreement with the crowd, and it's not a matter of difference of opinion between us. There are guidelines here[1] that are not being met. A conscious effort was made to prevent this site from being an echo chamber and to prevent it from descending into entropy and the approach you describe here directly contradicts this. The crowd is very often wrong. If you are getting downvoted for incorrectness or disagreement, the crowd is definitely wrong. Please don't change your mind over downvotes! That's what the conversation is for.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

If your response to an argument is inb4, you don't get to tell somebody else they're not putting in enough effort to provide substance. Also, I brought up race dynamics before your inb4, so even if anticipation counted as more than a shallow dismissal, you didn't meet that bar.

I really don't understand what's happening here lately such that 15-year-old accounts are behaving so poorly. This is the first time you've said 'inb4' in what I can only guess is thousands of comments over a decade and a half. If you don't care about the standards here anymore, why stick around and make things worse for the rest of us? Is there some other draw than quality of conversation?

I wrote something earlier to the same effect and wound up deleting it because it let too much frustration through. I am frustrated, but you don't deserve the brunt of that. Sorry if that's still coming through.

People directly criticize LLM code generators all the time on this site. It's all over the place. You are almost certainly being routinely banned because you write low-effort comments that violate the site guidelines and negatively impact the conversation.

As a guy who presumably has a lot less experience in security than you, I feel rude even bringing it up: surely you're aware of red teaming? This isn't a novel technique invented for AI- IBM has a page about it, it's what all the best DEF CON talks are about, it's the opening scene of Sneakers, it's the point of CtF games.

The companies are begging to be regulated for this reason and have been doing so for years. HN's response is generally that this is performative for marketing or seeking regulatory capture or haha anthropic you get what you ask for. Maybe the cynics are right, but there's really nothing inconsistent about the naive view here, once you factor in race dynamics and obligations to investors.

Is this new behavior from them? I haven't looked at their free chat offering in a minute, but I thought they always had them close behind paid tier, often with essentially equal products that made it weird for them to sell the paid tier for chat.

You can't use that meme argument at the beginning and mention that it is perfectly possible to boycott the other company at the end. The whole point of the meme is that participating in society is unavoidable, right?

And I don't think you can use "one step away from" a meme arguments at all. Pattern matching to a cartoon is not a great tool for this in the first place, and once you've acknowledged that the pattern doesn't even match, what's the point?

This notion that legislatures are blind to the number of jobs that will be created is contradicted by your previous link. You can scroll through table 2 for this- Alabama expects 20 jobs, Georgia 5-25, Nevada 10, etc. These states don't seem at all confused about how much local labor is required. And this is what they're setting as minimums; they believe that, absent mandate, the data centers would provide fewer jobs than these numbers.

Any source that they're confused about (b)? I believed you about (a) until I read your source- the notion that they're getting misled by construction job numbers was plausible- but I can't imagine how a government would be so fundamentally confused about what data centers are as to believe they'll provide local services or somehow goods.

What seems more likely to me is that the states/counties/cities believe that they will take in enough tax revenue while providing very little back in government resources that throwing in a discount works out just fine economically. I don't think you've made much of a case otherwise.

I'd think that the claim

>Nobody invests a billion dollars in a facility without first lobbying to get an exemption from property taxes. Most states in the US have passed incentives that include sales and property tax exemptions.

is not at all supported as "exactly the truth" by a link that lists 11 states with property tax abatements, most of which are not full exemptions. Am I mistaken?

Could you point to some evidence that we are not? Or at least an anecdote or an opinion on what the issue is or anything at all of substance rather than a provocative question and a bit of snark? What am I supposed to take away from this- I don't even know whether 'we' refers to the consumer or participants in the labor market

This doesn't make any sense. The population has experienced massive uplift over the last few decades. Their parents weren't going on vacations with the family as kids, they were struggling to put food on the table. Houses are outpacing inflation, but the home ownership rate continues to climb.

I'm not a moderator, but this is not the way to engage here, and your profile seems to have a lot of the same. You should peruse the comments section of https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html or at least try and bring a little more effort to the conversation. You can make the same point in a way that adds light rather than heat.

As far as casino games, you might find yourself in this situation with a half-decent poker hand or if you're counting cards in blackjack. Casinos don't hand out advantages over the house, which is why the former is coming from other players and the latter is against the rules. As the sibling comment notes, it is generally irrational to participate in casino games and the simulator is correct to tell you not to do so.

This comes up more when you have (or at least believe you have) information that the counterparty doesn't have.

Reactions to Windows ME forced MS to respond with XP; reactions to Vista forced them to respond with 7. They're being stated in parallel rather than chronologically.

It's good that we'd be able to increase the amount of goods and services produced and reduce prices. For example, a lot of people would benefit from access to cheap, reliable heart surgery within a few days of learning they needed it. It would be good if the exponential growth that has elevated our wellbeing for the last millenia wasn't tethered to exponential population growth that would be disastrous if we even expected it to continue.

It would be bad to remove demand for humans from the economy, of course. Humans have inherent moral value, and so it's good that our current system gives them economic value as well. But there's more than one way to achieve that end, and the massive quantity on the good side of the scale suggests it may be worth investigating the others instead of opposing the advancement outright.

I would think that qualia is the element of that list that actually matters here- "Is there a way that it feels to be an LLM?" is, I expect, the underlying question being asked within "Is an LLM conscious?". If LLMs could only experience the timeless, nonlocalized color blue, they'd still be conscious. The presence of positive and negative valence qualia is additionally relevant if someone is getting at whether they have moral worth, but it's secondary.

But qualia are not directly measurable and the rest of the list only matters if those features are necessary for qualia, which we can't decide without such measurements or at least a strong theoretical model.

I can accept that AI labs themselves, like essentially no company before them, are overselling how dangerous their product is far marketing. It's weird how confident everyone is about that theory, but it does at least make sense.

But come on- Hugging Face benefits from increasing the perceived capabilities of OpenAI's models to slightly beyond Anthropic's? Enough to be cut in on this PR scam- to be handed the never-before-revealed information that this is a PR scam- despite having much less skin in the game than their partner here? And then they turned around and used a Chinese model to successfully stop it? This is a stretch!

Thank god. I'd been hearing we screwed up catastrophically by electing an admin that took a chainsaw to our foreign aid programs, killing millions in the developing world. Such a relief to learn we were never doing that stuff in the first place.

Did you mean to say you feel LLMs will be made into an even worse replacement? Otherwise not clear on your "early days" point.

The second half of your second paragraph is also forward looking- as I said, LLMs would have to get orders of magnitude worse for this to be a concern versus social media. I am surrounded by people- smart, informed people- who were convinced by instagram or TikTok or whatever that Mitch McConnell was brain dead a few weeks back, despite their being wrong about Trump in the same way several times already. We're in a thread mentioning "all the negative externalities from AI development", and I just have to hope they're not talking about water usage and electric prices and silent-but-deadly infrasound because everybody inexplicably believes that those are real, serious concerns. LLMs aren't doing this! This is the status quo!

The chatbot I'm interacting with does not tell me the things I want to hear. This is just not true. I don't know how to convince you otherwise.

>Getting better at what? The things you list are exactly the things that make LLMS subtly powerful and far more dangerous that social media

? At not hallucinating, not being sycophantic, making good quality judgments, making good strategic judgments. The things I listed. I don't know how this connects with the rest of this paragraph.

My "agenda" is believing true things and not believing false things. Sorry, but if someone is opposed to this for me, they are not a person I'd like to speak with.

Jury, I direct you to exhibit A.

>You're basically asking to be coddled, affirmed, validated, and protected.

Incorrect. My interactions with LLMs simply don't look like this. I don't know where you got this idea from what I said. I have a prompt that begs the thing to call me out, and it currently does so too much, which is exactly what I prefer.

What it doesn't do is rub minor disagreements in my face, jump to conclusions about who I am based on pre-existing beliefs, or tell me to go to therapy when I earnestly admit my humanity.

I have more meaningful intellectual conversations with LLMs in a given day than in a month on social networks. And the LLMs never try to make me feel angry or stupid, they never ignore my arguments to go on their own soapbox, they almost never feed me misinformation (and never deliberately), and they've yet to tell me to my face that the purpose of their interactions with other people is not to convince or even communicate with those people but to perform for an audience (often one that doesn't feasibly exist).

Some caveats here: my view of social media is biased by the fact that jerks tend to pull me out of the woodwork- I get ragebaited, although I think I avoid the literal bait- so many of my interactions are with jerks. Looking around, I expect I'm not alone, but this may not be the default experience. And the LLMs certainly aren't perfect. They can hallucinate, they're often sycophantic, they're bad at judgment in a number of ways, probably others I'm missing.

Compared to actual people, they suck. Compared to social media as it exists today, they have orders of magnitude to fall before your comparison makes sense to me. And, at least for now, the LLMs are the ones getting better while the social networks are- AFAICT, universally- getting worse.

Yes, thank you. The news story here is that it slipped below IPO price during intraday trading. In a perfect world, IPO price should equal the fair value; in our world, there are random-walk price variances moment to moment; in synthesis, briefly dipping below IPO price (and not even at close/open!) is not evidence of any wrongdoing.

I was responding to the person pointing to this as confirmation of the long-running social-media-populist narrative surrounding this IPO. I consider that confirmation bias. I was not responding to the narrative itself, on which my only positions are: a prior against social media populism, a prior towards our financial institutions, a prior against trusting Musk, and a prior against trusting our current governance.

This is shaped like more-or-less every IPO I've seen. I think you have to wait for more of a collapse to claim dispositive evidence of a scam (or widen your claim to 'almost all IPOs are scams').