throw10920

> Uh, proof needed for this outlandish claim

Your sarcasm is as low-effort as your original post.

Anyone with a functioning brain can see how

> You want an executive to issue a press release about how dysfunctional and bureaucratic their company is and that’s why it’s so hard for users to actually use these new models?

...is intentionally assigning beliefs to me purely from your own imagination without any connection to reality.

Your childish pretending that you didn't say something that is literally on record immediately above is a tactic employed by kindergartners, caught by their parents eating a cookie, who claim that they're not eating a cookie.

Thanks for the fact-check. It's kind of wild the misinformation that people try to get away with online.

I think I see the pattern - you like just making up things that you believe that others are thinking and asserting that those are their beliefs.

Uh, proof needed for this outlandish claim.

> If the US did something like this, the world will move to Chinese hardware and AI

Hardware? Why would anyone change their hardware based on this? That's completely unrelated.

And as for Chinese LLMs - there's already evidence that the Chinese are training malicious behavior into their models. I think most countries would rather train their own models than risk that.

> other than to make you sound more clueless

Sound clueless? It was trumpeted from the rooftops when they made the utterly deranged claim that "rich" -> "no damages".

Is it possible it's a troll account?

> It's a bit unfair that you only quote "No.", as the full response was:

No, it's entirely fair. There's absolutely no obligation to include the rest of it.

> If someone thinks a feature can be useful

Still unnecessary. Nobody is under any sort of obligation to contribute if they point out limitations of something.

> especially in the era of agentic coding

Agentic coding requires effort, unless you're advocating for slop.

Who is "we"? When did all the Western countries coalesce into a single state? What am I missing?

31 months is extremely high given that the same country let off a guy who sexually assaulted a 12-year-old girl and a 13-year-old girl with zero prison time for the two offenses combined.

That's extremely weird. I don't know of another place that does that aside from Quebec, and it's extremely illogical on its own merits.

Flag (comments like the above extremely clearly break the guidelines which is what flagging is for), downvote, and contact the mods if there's a pattern of behavior. HN is partially moderated by its users!

Flag those comments. They're very clearly violating the guidelines, which is exactly what the flag button is for.

> Technology isn't apolitical.

Irrelevant. HN is not the place to randomly inject flamewars about politics. It's explicitly against both the purpose and guidelines of HN.

Seems like you need to review the guidelines again, because they're pretty clear:

> Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I heard the term "Gruen Transfer"[1] to describe the successful hijacking of attention in a store. I think it's useful to describe digital platforms, too - you go to YouTube to watch a video recommended by a friend, and then when you're done, The Feed attempts to pull a Gruen on you.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gruen_transfer

> Or, they care but they lack the vocabulary to express what they care about.

That's speculative to the point of being conspiratorial.

> Are you honestly suggesting that the end user doesn't care about having to throw exponentially more money at stuffing RAM into their PC just to make the game all their friends are playing online function?

I'm extremely clearly not suggesting that. Don't make up things and pretend that other people said them. Engage honestly or not at all.

> So your argument is abusive practices are required for the creation of influential companies, serious technology, and high paying salaries?

They never said anything remotely like that in their comment. Please engage in good faith, don't lie and pretend that others said things they didn't, and don't break the guidelines.

The vast majority of people do not care about memory efficiency on the levels we're talking about. I've never met a non-technical person who has cared. And out of the technical people that I know (which represent less than 5% of the population), no more than half of them have complained about the memory usage of an electron app.

So this hypothetical is wrong.

> Dear fellow humans from "Hacker News".

Please don't lump HN users together to attack them. This is "sneering at the community", which is explicitly forbidden in the guidelines:

> Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.

If you have a specific comment to respond to, then respond to it.

And thank you for sending that link, because it was extremely useful and detail-packed.

I literally had never heard of this before. I don't check HN every single day.

It's extremely reasonable to ask for a link, very easy to include one when making a claim, and attacking someone for asking for evidence is extremely anti-intellectual independent of the level of effort required.

(n.b. that doesn't excuse the hostile way that they asked for proof - "Let's all just believe this baseless assertion shall we")

> But the Chinese are doing just that?

Completely and totally irrelevant. Has nothing to do with the fact that you are not obligated to others' work.

> Legal != moral

Sure, you're right.

I guess the bigger issue is that the GP's post calls out Anthropic for following along in legal (but what we both believe to be immoral) mass copyright infringement that OpenAI started, while absolving them of the exact same thing. It's a shill account.

> Problem with Anthropic is that they benefited massively from open source and now are completely against it

Uh, no. They're against open weights. They benefited from open source. Not the same thing.

And the terms of those open-source licenses explicitly allowed usage of the code for whatever. They're using it exactly as licensed.

> Why do they get to benefit, but not everyone else?

How many tens of billions of dollars have you invested into training models?

> - no open weights

That's a good thing, not a bad thing. Nobody is entitled to give you something that they spent (tens of?) billions of dollars to develop for free.

> - can’t use claude to research AI

No problems there either.

> - train on everyone else’s IP and sell it back to them

Which the courts have yet to actually make a ruling on. It seems like it's perfectly legal.

> - 8 regulatory capture attempts and counting

A tweet is not a "regulatory capture attempt".

> - so controlling they are the only US company blacklisted by the US government

If you don't have a point, don't make anything up. There's precisely zero evidence to that backs up the claim that their "controlling" is why the DoW specifically (not the USG, and in fact the WHCOS specifically disagrees with their position) made an unlawful attempt to designate them as a "supply chain threat".

Is this an OpenAI propaganda account?

What company do you work for that makes its tech decisions based purely on ideology without regard to engineering merits?

This is one of the most anti-intellectual and unsuitable for HN comments I've ever seen.

You're proudly proclaiming your lack of desire to learn or discuss on a forum meant for those things.

Go to Reddit. That's the right place for you.

I have basic understanding about how refusal-removal works - find the "no" weights by intentionally generating diverse refusals, and then set those weights to zero.

Is there a similar process for removing not refusals, but misinformation?

> Who cares if the site is LLM generated?

Lots of people. Even on HN, which is wildly unrepresentative of the US as a whole, comments that "this site was AI-generated" are commonly upvoted to the top because people do care.

That includes me. If it's AI-generated, I don't care about it - if it wasn't worth their time to write, it's not worth my time to read. I can generate it myself.

> The content is what’s interesting

If it's generated, the odds of it being wrong are far higher, because people who publish generated content are far less likely to care about quality or correctness.

Evidence?

Wrong in the sense that it has less of an impact than they are claiming (e.g. "AI is in an overvalued hype bubble") or less (AI is going to be even more transformative than the hypers say)?

In the former case, isn't it just business as usual? (well, with a huge, nasty recession - but the economy at least continues on in some recognizable form)

It makes sense to me to focus on weird possible futures if we already have the "happy path" somewhat known and barely under control.

> Your comment technically does as well.

Which guideline did I violate?

> Leave the policing up to dang and the other mods.

The mods have been very clear that they expect the community to do some self-policing and not rely exclusively on them to do it for them.