collingreen

Very well written both in prose and tone. I'm glad she decided to tell this story. If the author isn't a professional writer I think she could be.

This is a great "behind the scenes" style look at the actual people behind a viral clip. Luckily they have an extremely strong relationship to help soften the blows here, I'm not sure an average (not even bad!) relationship could come out of something like this unscathed.

There's something feral in us that comes out from time to time, especially online from the safety of our screens. I found the announcers within the range of good fun but when it gets to people reaching out to break up their marriage or telling him to kill himself it becomes really sobering.

I think this is part of what people are calling the lonlieness epidemic - despite thousands of screaming voices the whole thing makes me feel hollow and hopeless.

Some of us have internalized it! It's like walking around in the twilight zone or the bodysnatchers movie sometimes. In a dream society we could agree on some values and argue about how to direct our shared efforts. In this one we can't agree on values or even facts. It's equal parts maddening and terrifying.

We need help in avoiding the worst futures that could come from this.

That must have been a crazy moment for you when you first saw it and a big sigh moment for whomever had to explain it to you the first time. Thanks for sharing this; it made me smile!

I would have agreed a few months ago before opus 5 but I'm back to plan mode and lots of the old tricks trying to get that insolent model to follow instructions. 5.5 so far is better but certainly doesn't feel under my control (had it go off and read other repos and make changes just yesterday while in "plan mode").

Getting out of a toxic job while failing up. Business can be strange sometimes.

What makes it hard, these days?

I did plenty of WP back in the day and I agree, historically, but each of the strong answers I had in my mind (db integration, editor, plugins, themes) are weakened substantially by the AI agents' ability to port a working site to a new framework. I totally agree for normal users still but for devs taking jobs on this do you think the barriers to switching have come down in size?

Of course they don't but the post was responding to "what adversaries" in the definition of supply chain risk posted above, and those are some of the real answers to that. I did not read that comment as implying anthropic was controlled by those countries at all, just responding to the actual question. My take away from the post was that those are actual adversaries and, unless the administration is claiming anthropic products ARE controlled by those adversaries, the claim of "supply chain risk" is not in good faith.

Alas, even my question about it was downvoted.

And then declared the other side a supply chain risk, claiming it is a potential vector for a national adversary to break in and cause unwanted bad things to happen unrelated to this contract.

It seems like absurdly bad faith starting at breaking the contract (over "you have to follow the law", no less!) and then to retaliate after that with trying to destroy the company's reputation and ability to do business. The boot licking going on here justifying the government operating in bad faith is both disappointing and short sighted. I didn't think the leopards would eat MY face!

~Are you just having a fun convo or do you think suffering is good and should not be prevented?~

~Whatever your take is can you articulate it so we dont have to wait for parent to respond and then your response too?~

Nevermind, saw your other comments. Dont feed the trolls.

This is technically correct but also giving "guns don't kill people; people kill people" vibes from that NRA marketing/propaganda campaign.

This feels like an incomplete statement. Waymo makes decisions locally and also escalates to humans, often. Humans making decisions at intersections or important route moments or unexpected scenarios is probably the right move for a long time, in my opinion. The moment by moment decisions are onboard as they have to be but it isn't "wayno doesn't do this".

Be careful what you wish for. This weekend in tearing out hundreds of crappy tests that got vibed into a codebase.

I won't. What's the difference here between resisting and absorbing volatility?

It's not bad faith but it certainly is pointed. Parent says it's not worth discussion until there is a test. I stand by my sentiment that refusing to engage with the morality of something just because we don't all have a clear, agreed upon test is a shirking of responsibility.

I think you agree somewhat in that based on your softening to an imperfect, testable theory.

I'm not sure what your goal is with the rest - even if I'm the world's most evil hypocrite casting judgement on all the conscious beings out there I don't see what that changes about the point that we can and should engage with the morality of a concept even if we don't have a perfect test for that concept. If you think I'm doing that and you think that is bad then I guess we agree again on the point but are just adding friction for fun?

Unrelated: I'm quite certain OP is conscious but I guess on the internet nobody knows you're a ~dog~ ai.

Thanks for the reply!

I'm not sure I agree that consciousness (or sentience if we're making that distinction) is worthless when considering the morality of exploiting something/someone. I do agree there are more angles than that but they seem on top of something's ability to perceive not instead/despite of it.

Do you have some examples of other things that go into your own moral opinions about slavery?

It's nice when you can set an impossibly high bar before which you can dismiss all your personal responsibility.

Does this argument work equally well for human slavery for you? We haven't met that bar for humans either. Is wondering about my consciousness waffle or do I get a pass in your book?

Rich folks knowingly exploiting somebody for their own profit? Say it ain't so!

Even that is rarely the deciding factor (people harm dangerous animals for fun).

Seems as simple as "will this action bring social shame/criticism" for any individual decision.

Seriously this

We need people to stop internalizing that the government and the rich somehow deserve access to private data just because they want to use it. Seeing a way to make money using enough to make you entitled to it.

Force businesses to add value if they want to exist instead of extraction or rent seeking.

"A mistake" is a far cry from criminal negligence and we shouldn't conflate them.

And accessibility.

The posts above claiming design and content are inextricably linked are probably blessed with all the standard senses.

As usual it's a bunch of folks talking past each other. Style and content together is a nice simplification when you want to conform to a particular vision. Separation is a nice abstraction if you want to enable multiple views of the same content (like a pdf version or a colorblind version or a vision impaired version) without having to change/control the content.

Like most things in this space, different tradeoffs make one better than the other in different scenarios. Taking a hard stance of "one true way" is probably missing some imagination or experience.

Isn't that just the human problem for every possible form of government?

And therefore shouldn't be allowed to have opinions on crime and antitrust? Is that your argument?

The "you shouldn't need privacy if you aren't doing anything wrong" is such a tired yarn.

There are many many many examples of abuse, both in the short term (flock gymnastics pedophiles, cop loveint, cross state abortion suspicion tracking) and long term (the "red scare", the administration performing loyalty tests). There are also plenty of discussions outlining how everyone should support privacy because some need it more than others and we're all on the same team.

Pretending people who are against flock or government illegal surveillance care more about criminals then their families is so bad faith it makes them an asshole (not you but a comment above).

The arrogance of this comment detracts from the kernel of good, which is that banks are very complicated and lots of the complication is regulatory and finance, not just software.

Don't forget ethical concerns about using things that only exist because of boatloads of criminal behavior.

Some people are tired of situations where 14 year olds get hounded for years for downloading music but altman/amodei/musk/zuck get billions and zero consequences for stealing more copyrighted content than any individual ever could in a lifetime.

Equal parts very cool and very scary to me

That's much better than my original, perhaps unfair, read. Thanks for the additional info.

I still would feel scared operating an established product off a newly changed stack the team isn't familiar with though.

Seriously! What a bonkers thing to claim. "I had codex use maestro so I assume it made Android work well and idiomatically".

It's a fine project to do but clearly they put zero value on being familiar with the project's codebase/stack and ecosystem, which makes me feel fear in my heart when I imagine the first "production is down" page coming in. I already hated mobile because it's so much harder to maintain than web (and I don't do any spyware or IAP so no benefits for me there); this yolo approach would give me constant dread.

It shows that at least some software development is moving away from code and to product management instead. I'm not passing judgement on that; I actually think that's great for a lot of software. It is interesting to see the shift happening though and will be fun to see if the general quality of software noticeably changes over the next few years.

I didn't downvote but I'd expect downvotes for a completely unnuanced thought terminating cliche that ignores everything in the thread. AI fanaticism doesn't help but lots of people don't get downvoted for that alone.