petterroea

I'm generally very critical of the idea that people are relying on ai, but the thing I didn't realize in the past and that I see many like me haven't is that the literacy of an average citizen is surprising low. I know people who get very useful life advice from these models. Life advice anyone over 16 should know, but that doesn't matter. This trust people incorrectly put in models means they actually listen. And SOTA models are pretty accurate when it comes to common sense. Most of the time. So it actually works out.

I still get very anxious at the idea of people relying on llms though. It just works out more often than we think.

It means you aren't entitled to visit a foreign country. You aren't entitled to them letting you in.

Of course in a perfect world we all trust each other and have open borders, but that's a privilege we have to work for. I'm European and enjoy the open borders, but also am well aware that such a situation is not a given.

Cannot mean loss of personal rights, sure. Showing up at a border and being required to give up personal rights isn't ok.

But many people in this thread are writing as if they actually believe they have a right to go anywhere, and that simply isn't the case. It's the kind of thing you need live in a strong passport country to believe.

Visiting another country is a privilege, not a right.

aw, they didn't reset weekly usage for this. oh well

This is super cool technology, but will be abused to death

Recently there seems to be an uptick in North-Korean attacks against developers. In addition to this type of attack, which has been going on for years, I recently get ~1 email a week from North Korean hackers. It's always a "Hello, I found your profile, want to collaborate?" e-mail.

Discord communities I am in for programming are similar. People show up and within a few days either ask for a job or suggest cooperation. Sure, you could argue these Discord people may actually be out of a job (in this economy, very likely), but the volume and similarity of the messages say otherwise. You can also tell people show up in... _weird places_ to ask for jobs. An example being the Discord community for a not-really-used Python library with ~0 actual activity - either this person is very bad at finding good places to jobhunt or some attacker is just crawling a list of Discord communities and attacking them all.

It's a shame but there are a _lot_ of attacks that abuse our trust in each other nowadays. A good reminder to, like mom and dad said, never trust strangers on the internet

Settlement would mean it doesn't become legal precedence, right?

This outcome seems to be the best possible for Anthropic. Over 100B$ have been invested in AI so far, venture capital can afford to pay a few billions per big company as a South Park style "Sorry".

Or am I missing something?

Recently there's a few articles critiquing the Norwegian system, arguing that we are going towards the "American model" as described by this article. The second kids are scored, they are relentlessly head hunted and not allowed to be kids.

I guess they still have it nice compared to the US, but is that a Norway thing or a US thing? I bet other countries are similar to us.

I'm just happy we get to reap the rewards "for free" (i.e open models are slowly becoming usable, and the winner of the arms race will definitely stand on the shoulders of their competitors that didn't make it)

This is what I feel about the Withings ScanWatch 2. It's an "analog watch" that can also do fitness tracking and show notifications if I want. I owned a pixel watch 1. It was too much.

I've heard a lot of negative talk about Californian politicians, but compared to how the discussion is going on in Norway about the same issue, this is great. It's very refreshing to see politicians actually understand the problem at hand instead of just throwing age checks at it.

For reference, in Norway, you basically have 3 camps:

* Age verification is a detriment to democracy if implemented at a large scale as a requirement to speak in public. Well documented (activists and subject matter experts generally agree on this)

* We will solve the problem of kids online and we will solve it now. The solution must be age verification. Experts loud protest, and even committee findings that warn against are completely ignored (usually people who want a quick and easy solution, politicians who want the bragging rights of having saved the kids)

* We want to solve the problem, but the only obvious solution is age verification so I guess it can't be helped (not really educated on the topic. Just like most of us when it comes to a random political question. Not really a matter of intelligence)

Absolute circus.

I think most people here used the internet as a kid to learn about things and talk to adults in the field there were interested in. For today's kids this happens mostly on the few big sites like twitter and discord.

I'm more than happy to sacrifice endless scroll and recommendation algorithms (at least the type that is thrown at you without consent) to not have to verify my age to speak online.

Most people I talk to who use starlink in an urban setting are not in such a situation, they are just using it because "satelite internet cool"

I remember 10-15 years ago The Gathering, Norways biggest LAN party, had a wifi sponsor, and there were talks about how soon we don't even need wired internet, because wifi is getting so good with wifi 6 and all. Crazy thing to claim about a sports hall with 5000 computers and even more mobile devices.

I can't say we are much closer to that goal now :)

You are right about drones, but Starlink etc is still used a lot by forward deployments of troops. Afaik it has revolutionised the ability to contact these deployments. But I'm not an army guy

Starlink has its uses, but I really don't understand those who get starlink while living in built-up areas.

Starlink is just a re-skin of the "Wireless optic" thing a lot of ISPs are pushing because they would prefer not having to lay cables and instead have everyone use 5g routers. Of course, the service isn't comparable, but regular people don't necessarily know it. Fiberoptic is still king, and probably will be for a long time.

There's nothing comparable to direct fiberoptic cable, and anyone who says otherwise immediately outs themselves as being a sellout or having anti-consumer motives. In 100 years it may be different, but I'm probably not going to be around in 100 years, so...

I think that's a very weird and dishonest take. To me, it reads as written by reflex rather than in good faith.

You can point out that something isn't a good look and not be a pearl-clutching culture warrior, although for people who feel strongly for/against it certainly doesn't feel this way. The marijuana culture in general is in my experience generally perceived as tacky and I personally know many who use but want nothing to do with the culture itself because it's a bunch of people whose humor essentially equates "weed = funny" in the same way kids equate "poo = funny". As usual it's a loud majority making the rest look bad, of course, and not a general rule about how marijuana users behave.

It is well known that similar people get along and stick together, and if you manage a community you will know that whatever you put on a pedestal decides what kind of new people are attracted, and what kind of people stay. If you want to build something community driven, this is something you will need to manage. Sure, you can put this kind of stuff on the home page, but your home page tells new users what the community looks like.

As an example you are probably familiar with, Reddit solved this using subreddits and the front page - the content shown to new users is almost by definition the most popular and agreeable content that most people like, which is good for adoption. I think we would both agree reddit would seem a lot less attractive if to new users if the user is shown a random selection of new posts from all across the site. Instead, it is the users responsibility to find niches that may fit them better than the average opinion. Most subreddits are out of sight for those who don't care/don't want to interact with it.

If you want to show off your product and want adoption, would you rather nobody tell you and suffer from a lot of people turning away with no idea why? Or would you prefer people point out possible issues? It doesn't mean you have to agree, but data is important, and I think anyone with any community work experience could tell you the exact things I have written.

As a side note, having "Weed Smoke Willie" be a featured game on the front page isn't really a good look. As the saying goes "birds of a feather flock together", and I think a lot of people will see that and think "okay so that's the kind of person that uses this platform"

If we want to solve that we need to stop enabling career politicians whose only life experience is debating

Is it radical to (through regulation) force part of the sales figure to go towards a trust that pays for CDN hosting+some simple server for authenticating ownership in the case of the service shutting down?

It could even incentivize actors to consider other options, like selling access to download the files themselves

If they are getting regulated to death they may as well bring the rest of the industry down with them, probably

Frankly, considering this is a laptop, I wish they spent more effort on delivering a flush 1gbe module rather than a 10gbe module. It has become an elephant in the room every time someone asks about my framework laptop. It... sticks out like a sore thumb, per say.

Oh yeah. Strategic disruption technique or not its a breath of fresh air.

China aren't offering a cheaper solution. They are subsidizing an existing one (which is already subsidized) in order to gain foothold. The difference is that in the US subsidies come from VC, while OP implies subsidies come from the AI labs that buy the training data (which may as well also be VC backed, so just one extra hop).

This isn't "the market working as intended", this is an exhaustion fight to the bottom where the one with most money gets to stay in the market. As with most venture capital startups. I believe this VC tactic is a well documented "cheat code" to bypass market forces and build a monopoly. I find it hard to compare that with a free market.

However, I don't really mind China "stealing" from Anthropic. For us consumers we are getting the cake and eating it too. I.e we are getting rapid improvement to the tune of over a hundred billion dollars in funding, yet the market remains big enough that there's a chance of it not ending up as a monopoly in 20 years. And venture capital are footing the bill. A part of their investment is practically being redirected to fund Chinese AI development. It lets us live out our lives as happy CAC farmers[1].

So I would argue its not as much of a "cheaper solution" as it is intentionally and maliciously abusing another company's product to extract more value than the billing plans intend (given an average user), and further subsidizing the product by selling this data to competitors. But I don't necessarily think its a bad thing for us end-users. Nor for the market. But it is bad for Anthropic and its investors.

[1]: https://phrack.org/issues/71/17

Living in Japan, most popular concerts are handled this way. It really really sucks to not get a ticket, and it sucks even more that we need to do it this way because of scalpers. But hey, if it means I overall have a better chance of getting tickets (at list price at that), hey, I guess it is worth it.

I wish there were better ways of defeating scalpers.

I can't decide if this is a "techbro doesn't understand human factors" post or not, especially considering geohots reputation.

I do believe it is possible Anthropic are legitimately trying to start political discourse, but if they are they are either sacrificing themselves on purpose or shooting themselves in the foot. Others in the comments here are pointing out that there are many incentives for them to get into politics. Maybe they see possible outcomes worth the short term problems.

If it is just marketing and FUD, it's worth considering that a good lie is usually based in truth.

Let's say Anthropic were a "hippie organisation willing to sacrifice revenue for morals" (or pick your own, I'm just giving an example). Could they play the politics game better?

Immediately the wallpaper looks AI generated, and for me that immediately removes any trust in "graphic design" and "attention to detail. But the rest is cool

Am I the only one who feels Boston completely missed their chance and fell behind by being slow on selling robot dogs?

Chinese companies were quick to jump in and fill that unfulfilled demand. I work with robots and have never seen a Boston machine irl. Tonnes of Chinese though

I personally know other people who have filed similar complaints, and the Norwegian Datatilsynet explicitly stated they acted based on many complaints. I don't think they care about a single person's voice in this, even if they "helped create the law".

It's a shame, but it probably says more about Datatilsynet's capacity. Frankly it would be great if you could simply say "this company did something dodgy", provide proof, and immediately get results. But that's not the world we live in.

Part of the problem is that even if you did a good job it doesn't really matter because the rest of the industry isn't, so no user wants to give you a chance

This should be obvious but why would you trust what the spade seller says about being an AI-native startup.

Even if you believe AI-native startup is the future (the comments are divided), you would at least want to hear from an impartial source.

This is just marketing material.