I was unaware anyone was alleging that Anthropic’s rights are being violated. Can you explain what right is being violated and where?
frontier64
Karma: 548
In cases where convincing is >>> costly to complying to the request it’s good form to comply
This is about the most untrue and harmful thing I’ve seen written out in a while. Alice merely making a request does not obligate Bob to comply just because Bob complying is much easier than Alice convincing Bob to comply. Just no, you don’t wield that sort of power.
The $100k iPhone does exist. It’s a personal assistant. No product could be as good as giving your phone to your assistant and dictating to them what you want to do.
I don’t believe that post says what you think it says.
There’s plenty of actions Trump could take that would make supporters view him as genuinely much worse than average. The below list is not exhaustive nor does it set a lower bound, it’s just examples.
Trump could personally shoot someone randomly walking down the street in the middle of Times Square
ICE could deport multiple confirmed US Citizens or deport one citizen willfully and knowingly.
Trump could explicitly defy a US Supreme Court order without any legitimate color of law.
ICE could shoot and kill a protestor who was not in any way hampering legitimate law enforcement activity and was instead merely protesting nearby.
Trump could withdraw all federal funding from a State that is fully keeping up with its legal requirements to get those funds and pull that funding for solely political purposes.
Support of Trump as not much worse than average is falsifiable for many Trump supporters. However, belief that Trump is much worse than average does not appear to be in fact falsifiable for a large majority of his detractors, including many detractors on this site
If this is your best theory of mind for people on the right, then yes you have little chance of convincing anybody that doesn’t agree with you.
I hope this isn’t your actual understanding of the world. If it is, then you’re lost and need to find the way.
It is a normal political position in America that there is no such thing as apolitical executive agencies under the US Constitution. I don’t understand why supporting that policy has anything to do with “eroding democratic institutions” from your perspective. Leaving unelected bodies using executive power to implement Policy A after the public voted for a political candidate who supports Policy B seems incredibly undemocratic actually. Can you explain that?
I’m not talking about the dad telling Robinson to turn himself in. I’m talking about police reporting that the father said Robinson confessed. That is a massive distinction and the fact that Candace Owens continues to focus on the ‘told him to turn himself in’ while ignoring the whole part about the dad reportedly saying his son confessed makes me distrust her reporting on this issue.
Also, I am a criminal attorney. I would have the father sign and swear to an affidavit attesting to the truth, and then circulate that to the news media and immediately file it with the Court as part of a bond motion. I would also have Robinson’s father testify at a bond hearing if possible. This is a routine practice of criminal defense attorneys. While this is an unusual situation, if Robinson truly was being setup by the FBI I would expect the next thing to happen is that he be killed in custody because the case clearly won’t stick if they’re making it up this bad.
You seem to have left out the fact that Robin Hanson is a renowned economics expert and likely has more skill in deciding when to sell stocks than his spouse.
Your son has been arrested and the news media has all reported that your son confessed to you, you told a priest friend of yours, and that priest/retired Sheriff went to the authorities which is what led to your son’s arrest. But this is a lie and the FBI is setting your son up as a patsy.
Do you either:
A) Give an unrecorded statement to an unknown source for a conspiracy-minded conservative journalist/podcaster and do nothing else besides that; or
B) Sing from the rooftops and to every single possible news outlet you can find that your son is being setup in order to free him.
To answer your question succinctly: I don’t see or not see a rifle. The video is not clear enough to tell. And I think we should draw zero consequences from that.
I think trying to deeply analyze a grainy video to confirm or deny the existence of a rifle is a fool’s errand when there’s so much other evidence available. It’s silly for the FBI to claim it’s definitively a rifle, and it’s silly to claim that not being able to see a rifle in that quality of video cuts against guilt.
There’s a ton of other evidence, finding the rifle near the scene of the shooting in the woods, the other surveillance where a rifle is much more visible, the texts, the confession, etc.
Tyler Robinson is Rudy Guede. The evidence points towards him. Is it vaguely possible that the FBI has manufactured a ton of evidence and has convinced many civilians, including Robinson’s own father and his boyfriend to lie, but that is a mere possibility and definitely not reasonable.
Who knows if it would have been better or worse if we preemptively nuked the USSR and all nations attempting to develop nuclear weapons? We might have entered a millenia of absolute peace enforced by imperial rule of a benevolent despot. We might have destroyed the world and eradicated the human race. This type of what-if is unknowable with our current simulation abilities.
We might not have ever had to even use the nukes if we merely made the true threat that we would nuke any country attempting to develop nuclear weapons or caught spying on American nuclear secrets. Japan was willing to take any deal short of absolute surrender to merely avoid fire-bombing. One can imagine that other countries with considerably less Bushido would fold to lesser demands such as “don’t develop your own nukes or spy on America.”
We have never seen a world in which one country had absolute technological and military superiority over all the others. I don’t think with our current level of technology we can tell with a high degree of certainty if the world under US Total Domination would be a better or worse place. I would bet that if the US was more purely despotic and less benevolent it’d at least be better for the average US citizen. Instead of worrying about debt and global trade, the US could have merely demanded other countries export their goods for free to America and focus domestic production mainly on the construction of nukes and nuke delivery systems.
Did you intend to copy-paste the same text twice?
I really don’t see where we go from “prevent USSR from developing nukes” to “completely destroy even all above-ground buildings”. This argument seems like a clear case of moving goalposts. Clearly destroying a large portion of a country’s government, research scientists, and manufacturing base would halt or destroy all progress on nukes even if the large majority of homes remain undestroyed. Also, destroying a country’s military capability would lead to a much easier takeover. In Vietnam the US suffered more to internal politics and poor military policy decisions leading to no clear goal and no victory condition. If we preemptively nuked the USSR and then sent in the troops to hold the ground and slowly convert the Eastern Bloc into a US state that almost certainly would have worked.
I feel like a post that was seriously trying to make the case that rationalism is a cult would be significantly longer and more thought out. This post provides a random definition of a set, claims that set = cult, and then makes the true assertion that rationalism is in that set.
What do you mean when you say “Compensation Impact: Low”?
There is no hider-expansionary dichotomy like you describe here. Hiding just means that the civilization is not exposing itself to outside threats by other more advanced civilizations, and is not detectable at our current level of technology. Hiding civilizations can expand, with whatever limitations the necessity of hiding requires.
The Dark Forest theory only tries to explain why our human civilization does not see obvious evidence of other intelligent civilizations.
How does AI being good at some tasks and worse at others make the graph you posted not a good tool at explaining FOOM or increasing AI capabilities?
I’m not saying it isn’t a problem at all. I think I explicitly acknowledged that there is a problem where I said “the majority of the downside.” But it is a problem that the free market can resolve. The free market can’t resolve the doctor problem because the government literally requires the worthless undergrad degree to allow someone to practice medicine or else they’ll be jailed.
Employers who poorly select employees will most likely be out-competed by employers who make better decisions when selecting employees. We already see this in hiring for software engineers where many employers will accept a bachelors degree or other experience which demonstrates coding skill.
And for software engineering, at least when I went to school, you still had to be able to program at least a little bit to get a degree.
The majority of the downside from credentialism comes from fields where it’s literally illegal to work if you don’t have the right college degree
Does Nectome have any patents?