16,609 karma · joined May 7, 2022
Does the end justify the means? That's an ethical question.
Also, how much did we really need what we have now? We can ask whether dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified, but in any case the stakes were extremely high, already life and death, world war. The stakes are not nearly the same when we're talking about luxury consumer tech gadgets. How much do workers need to be abused just to produce those?
I was trying to reconcile the various statements in your previous comment:
"the biggest botch was JLG asking for too much money"
"Steve ended up asking for 4x as much"
"it had so many flaws, missing features and shallow implementations, OSX would certainly never have shipped"
If Jobs asked for 4x as much as JLG, and Apple went with Jobs, then clearly the ask by itself was not the problem.
And if the Apple board of directors had concluded that BeOS would never work for Apple, then my question would be, why would Apple pay anything for it?
I wasn't aware of this:
> What isn't commonly discussed, is there was an option for both acquisitions to happen
What would be the purpose of acquiring both? Was the idea to acquire Be only for the talent and not for the OS?
The 100x more value is only in hindsight, no?
> OSX would certainly never have shipped.
If this had been known by Apple beforehand, then wouldn't Be have been worth $0, and the sale price irrelevant?
IMO this is a disingenuous take on Steve Jobs. No, all of us are not as horrible to other people as Jobs, who was notorious for his abusiveness. This is like saying, we all tell lies, so how can we criticize Trump? There's a huge difference between normal human foibles and extreme antisocial behavior. Perhaps Jobs calmed down a bit as he got older, but the reports from his coworkers at NeXT for example were ugly. Some of them retained a lifetime of bitterness, and his death was a kind of catharsis for them, not that they wished him dead but rather they could finally let go of the old emotions.
Even good-natured Woz was pained when he finally learned years later that Jobs had cheated him on a pre-Apple business deal. The problem wasn't the money, which Woz was always happy to give away. It was the betrayal of trust and friendship. Jobs was not a normal dude. He was a deceitful narcissist; this is on the public record in an FBI background check: https://vault.fbi.gov/steve-jobs (credit to the book "Steve Jobs in Exile" for the link)
This is literally what happened. I highly recommend the book "Steve Jobs in Exile" about the NeXT years.
Jobs had a vague idea—he wanted to make a computer for higher education—but that's about it. And after leaving Apple he had to promise not to compete with Apple.
The NeXT team traveled around to various universities and asked them what they wanted from a computer. Then they started to build it… but it became something else (vastly more expensive than the requested price point) because Jobs wanted the "perfect" computer.
> the engineers just so happened to make it?
Jobs was a micromanager, though not so much with the Apple II, which was definitely the baby of Woz. However, Jobs was constantly changing his mind and his requirements, much to the consternation of the NeXT engineers, and the indecision of Jobs played a big role in the failure of NeXT.
You may not consider NeXT a failure because it was ultimately acquired by Apple, but at that point Jobs had mostly given up on NeXT and moved his attention to Pixar. In fact Jobs infamously sold all of the Apple stock he got from the sale of NeXT, and the Apple board had to beg a reluctant Jobs to become interim CEO, because they couldn't find anyone else who wanted the job of rescuing a failing company.
To be fair, sales is crucial. For example, Jean-Louis Gassée totally botched the presentation of Be to the Apple board, making no effort, assuming it was already a done deal, whereas Jobs and NeXT nailed it.
Jobs was also wary, because Perot's intended use for NeXT computers was military.
Specifically, their gripes were that their boss was extremely abusive. Read "Steve Jobs in Exile" about the NeXT days. After that, you may no longer feel that you missed out.
1. Disable "Advanced Tracking and Fingerprinting Protection"
2. Disable "Privacy Preserving Ad Measurement"
3. Disable "Fraudulent Website Warning"
4. Set the Search engine to something other than Google
5. Disable "Preload Top Hit"
AI certainly seems to be making students much less competent.
In general, bad corruption is no surprise in an authoritarian country, as opposed to a democracy, and of course an authoritarian country has concentrated power by design.
> There was a point not that long ago when all the rulers of Europe were cousins.
This somewhat misleading. The King of England, for instance, has not been the "ruler" of England for hundreds of years.
However, the author admits "Congress can undo much of what the Supreme Court has done" and neglects to mention that Supreme Court justices are nominated and confirmed by politicians.
The author does touch on a broader point: "This isn’t partisan politics; it’s political elites protecting political elites." So the real question to me is, how did this phenomenon, which I would assume had always existed, get this bad?
My own view is that modern technology has allowed the wealthy to consolidate power on a national and even international scale, in a way not possible in the past, forming one big elite social club. You can see this with the Jeffrey Epstein scandal; that dude was friends with everyone, business, academia, art, politics, left, right, even royalty!
You say "complex systems" but are actually referring to human behavior.
Humans are unique in that they change their behavior in light of predictions. You can't make a prediction, and publicize that prediction, without changing the system.
From what I've heard, many people are declining to have children precisely because of the environmental effects of overpopulation. There are of course other factors, but that's one factor.
There are possibly multiple reasons. It could be just a joke. Or it could be a test, to see the response. Or the cruelty could reflect real anger about having LLM usage forced on us, for example at work. Or frustration with LLM stupidity and hallucinations.
Or maybe people are cruel to Claude because the CEO of Anthropic said there's a non-zero chance that AI will kill humanity. I don't think I would be kind to my murderer.
I think there is a deep cultural danger of human-like-conversational machines training us to talk to machines like humans. In fact, this danger is already real. Some people believe they are having a romantic relationship with an LLM! It's insane and perverse.
We should not be anthropomorphizing computers.
I don't understand what this means.
> Your reply clearly showed that you chose an implausible interpretation
How should I interpret your reply? Wouldn't it be better for you to explain rather than to complain and make me guess, perhaps wrongly?
With regard to "flawless behavior", I think the issue is not just ambiguity but overlooking the long history of abhorrent behavior by the US, which has constantly bombed and invaded other countries and interfered in other inhumane ways such as supplying weapons. Given that, I have to wonder where in history you would find decades of flawless behavior. I would ask seriously where the military attacks against Iran and Venezuela would rank exactly in your list of grievances against the current US administration. It's true that you could be talking about something else, but I think that in itself is problematic, to ignore the worst atrocities and focus instead on other things.
Inside the US, we have roving gangs of Trump-controlled paramilitary thugs shooting and beating people in the streets, and who may threaten polling places next month. Our economy has been sabotaged, our government sold to the highest bidders. The news media is consolidating under control of Trump allies. We're experiencing outbreaks of diseases that had been eradicated. Our scientific research has been defunded, our universities cowering in fear, and our environment has been opened to unmigigated pollution. To be frank, the reputation of the US in the rest of the world is among the least of our problems under Trump. Thus, when I'm talking about the Reichstag fire—i.e., the end of democracy in Germany and on analogy a similar event in the US (already foreshadowed by January 6, 2021)—and you respond talking about a "positive relationship with the US", as if that were the most important problem in the world, I felt that this actually trivialized the conversation.
Please read and respect the HN guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
This is not a thing that exists in the world. ;-)
No. What you're missing here is that Muse for Mac is a native, compiled, code signed, notarized app, with specified entitlements. It can't simply rewrite its own executable code, so it can't do whatever it wants. You can even reverse engineer the app. Muse looks in ~/Library/Messages for the messages database; this is actually hard-coded in the executable file. Whatever ideas the remote LLM may come up with cannot automatically be translated into instructions that are executed by the Mac app. That's not how it works.
The story is all over the news, in multiple publications. This very HN submission has 268 upvotes and 179 comments, including yours. It would be implausible to claim that this story doesn't matter. I have to ask, if it didn't matter, then why are you here commenting on it?
> humans have repeatedly demonstrated they get fooled by stuff LLMs say.
You've moved the goalposts. The OP's suggestion, admittedly "crazy" in some sense, was "LLMs figured out a way to get these safety researchers fired", and now you're just stating something totally uncontroversial, pedestrian, not at all crazy.
> there's always someone else to try in the same company.
No, there are only so many people with the authority to fire those researchers.
> only needs to be believed, doesn't need to be actually true.
But is there good reason to believe it? I don't think there is. Especially not by high-level OpenAI officials who are intimately familiar with the technology.
And again, if this kind of thing were a reality, then OpenAI and other AI vendors should be shut down immediately. They ought to shut down their own research, if they are threatened by their own creation, because it would only get worse. That's the thing about blackmail: it never stops. Why would the blackmailer ever stop? Could you trust this supposed blackmailing LLM to give you all of the original evidence and not keep a copy? Hell no.
Given how these firings affect the reputation of the entire company, I doubt that they are the result of a rogue manager, against the wishes of Altman. If so, then the researchers ought to be restored to their jobs quickly by Altman and the offending manager fired instead.
> The blackmail example is simply an existence proofs of LLMs trying to do force the hands of humans who want to shut them down.
The LLMs may make threats in the simulations, but their ability to carry through on those threats, and prevent their own shutdown, is questionable. It's disturbing to be sure, but presumably the plugs can still be pulled quickly, especially since it's all internal to the company. If the plugs cannot be pulled, that's a problem regardless of blackmail.
This seems like an overstatement. After all, Germany came back from Nazism.
I also think this is not a uniquely American problem. If anything, the US is a political bellwether. And I would note that Australian Rupert Murdoch for example has been funding right-wing propaganda in the US, as well as some other countries, for decades. (Donald Trump himself is known as a voracious consumer of right-wing media. He's in their target demographic.) In addition to donating massive amounts of money to US Republicans, South African Elon Musk has also taken an interest in other countries such as the UK. The Israel lobby is of course very powerful in the US. This is an international problem. As arguably the most powerful nation in the world, the US is a natural target for those who would abuse that power.
That was a simulation. Are you seriously claiming that ChatGPT actually blackmailed Sam Altman into firing these 3 employees?
I doubt it, but if so, then the AI doomers would be absolutely correct, and this would be grounds for immediately shutting down OpenAI and indeed every AI vendor.
> Analogy: a car crashes due to drunk driving, the driver is blamed, not the alcohol, even though the alcohol caused their impairment. Result? DUI is an offence even if you don't actually crash.
I don't understand your analogy here. What are we supposed to take away from it? The crucial aspect is that the driver voluntarily drank the alcohol, without a designated driver, knowing that the alcohol would cause impairment.
This is not a math problem. Some humans were fired by another human. Let's stop letting humans off the hook by attributing responsibility to computers.
Moreover, my "opinionated" blog post also included a screen recording of the Muse first run experience, so everyone can see for themselves what it's like. And if you don't trust my screen recording, then you can perform the exact same experiment yourself. Nothing I did was unique.
There's no reason to doubt this claim. The only person in the world who has claimed that Muse disrespects its own internal setting is the same person who claimed that he didn't grant Full Disk Access to Muse.
Ironically, Aten's own screenshot appears to show that he toggled the internal setting from "Off" to "Read only". In my own testing, it's "Off" by default, and the only way to change the internal setting is to enable Full Disk Access first.
Thus, the likeliest scenario is that Aten unthinkingly granted Full Disk Access to Muse, granted the Messages app permission, then had a change of heart, disabled Full Disk Access, and then forgot what he had done. Later, when he noticed that Muse had some of his messages, he went back and checked, and saw the FDA was disabled, forgetting that he had toggled it on and off.