lol no one is getting personal emails, maybe some people get one every few months, but most probably never (not taking into account other than order/shipping confirmations, login codes, etc)
Will any of the data submitted be used in training? We are all given the prompt and you will get a few thousand (maybe tens of thousands of submissions). Seems like a great source of training material.
This article feels emblematic of the cognitive dissonance at the heart of ant. The contrast here is hard to ignore. Their core branding is rooted in extreme AI alignment and safety. Yet in practice, their origin story and inner circle seem consistently adjacent to highly questionable actor.
It's difficult to view these associations as mere accidents. At a certain point, the company you keep and the money you court reflects your actual ethical baseline, regardless of how many doomsday safety blogs you write.
Anthropic is no longer a good model company in my mind, they are optimizing for an IPO and padding themselves on the back for being the next Aristotle. They're so far up their behind they don't realize how s**y their products are, and their research team hasn't done anything ground breaking in probably over a year other than release "scary" reports.
You still have people defending the occupation forces even when the soldiers themselves are bragging no social media about killing kids, and how they wished they killed more.
In those cases the AI can spin up a shell corp and run the clinical trials, humans would administer the trials (maybe robots can do it). There is already hundreds of pharmaceutical companies so it isn’t difficult for an AI to spin up another and bring in humans when needed
I feel there is an elephant in the room not being discussed. Why does he care about "diffusion of the model" within the economy? If he truly believes there will be the development of a data center of geniuses wouldn't that imply complete market capture. Who cares if pharmaceutical companies or any other business is slow to adopt the AI, the AI will capture that market entirely making those companies obsolete. An API model wouldn't even make sense in this scenario because why would you sell your model when you can capture the entire economy of the business using your model.
1. You can get a great headshot using your smartphone
2. Headshots don't cost $300 (maybe on the extreme high end)
3. Gemini, ChatGPT, and nearly every multimodal model already solved this problem over a year ago.
Serious question: Why exactly is this impressive? They've raised over 100 million and hired scientists who know how to do this (and collaborated with Los Alamos), what exactly is the thing that is making this go viral.
To the best of your ability. If you can avoid Israeli tech then do so, if you can't at least you try. Also opensource technology is different because you can verify and audit the tech
If you're asking yourself why hasn't the bubble burst when everyone is calling it a bubble it's because no one wants to stop dancing until the music stops. If you told an investor the market will collapse tomorrow with 100% certainty they will invest today like there is 0% certainty of it happening tomorrow.
Now videos will be generated on the fly based on your preference. You will never put your phone down, it will detect when your sad or happy and generate videos accordingly
I don't doubt most code will be created by AI, but that actually doesn't translate to a huge boost in the daily life of an engineer. Also, codex and claude code aren't that complex of software products.
1. they aren't, they are just popular online.
2. the author has nothing to do with the original comment. Why do you think academic reviews are double blind?
The team is good, and I enjoyed the read. But this is just an engineering blog post. They're promoting this like it's ground breaking research and it's on their front-page. Ultimately this paper is not very meaningful and just a fun debugging session.
I've seen this play out dozens of times. So many startups that have come and go in the bay area were composed of extremely talented individuals, but almost all of them failed.
cool project but if this is what you are producing with $2 billion funding, i doubt you will survive. This is the type of article a grad student would write over a weekend.
The cognitive dissonance is astounding. This shows that what’s happening is far more than just a genocide. it’s a level of hatred and dehumanization so intense that even the possibility of appearing indirectly sympathetic to Palestinians is controversial. A universal moral statement like 'Never Again’ Can’t Only Mean Never Again For Jews' becomes unacceptable, not because it’s false, but because it dares to imply that Palestinian lives are worth grieving.
If I were to guess what was going on it has little to do with cognition as a company and more to do with it as a vessel. Too much capital raised without adequate venues to use the capital, low confidence in USD. In that sense parking the money in a startup that is being propped up by other capital is probably safer in an unstable future. If Cognition fails it's likely that the economy in general fails so that capital would have become worthless anyway.
This also probably serves to excite the market more potentially creating more opportunities in other areas. Also, this probably will make Cognition into some Katamari ball accumulating more startups.
Extremely reckless behavior by all the investors involved. They keep inflating a worthless product at the expense of bursting a bubble and collapsing a whole industry. I have not met one investor including investors involved in the deal who could elucidate clearly what the goal is.
I found the best dumb iphone to be an apple watch. I can't switch entirely to something like an old school Nokia because of imessage, emails, facetime, etc.
This is click-bait. All foundational AI companies have to do this. It doesn't matter how uncomfortable it makes you feel, someone needs to set the guardrails. How else is a model supposed to know what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. From a technical perspective there is no difference between "making meth" and "making a cupcake" both are just bytes in bytes out. At what point does something become inappropriate? When is the model crossing the line? These are all problems that someone has to decide.
because the benefits aren't that much greater, and great features in languages like erlang and haskell end up (to some extent) in popular languages (which further reduces the need to adopt such languages)