FWIW I understood your point just fine. It seemed to me that you made a clear enough distinction between "evidence that Claude didn't increase bugs" and "no good evidence either way".
What do you mean "better profitability criteria"? I don't want an index to exclude companies on the basis of profitability. I want it to hold the market.
(I also don't want them to create special exceptions. The S&P 500 has pre-existing inclusion criteria, and I'm glad they're sticking to their rules.)
There is an entire segment of mutual funds and ETFs that avoid stocks with high valuations, called value funds. About half my equities are in value funds.
The downside is that it's not an arbitrage. Sometimes they perform worse than the broad market. A lot of times, in fact.
I wouldn't say Anthropic is worse than OpenAI, but there's a lot wrong with them. https://anthropic.ml/ has a collection of incidents and relevant evidence.
Isn’t that site just loudly proclaiming that “pushing the frontier” of AI is inherently anti-social and that employees should be asking the public to “shut us all down” ?
That’s their core argument against Anthropic, that they are making progress at improving their models ?
Being pedantic, but I don't want to lose the meaning of the term: "AI psychosis" doesn't refer to someone who thinks AI is really good. It refers to someone who develops symptoms of psychosis from talking to an LLM, e.g. believing they have developed a new Grand Unified Theory of physics.
I don't know, "workaday professionals will find $200/month a particularly good deal, such that there will be widespread adoption" sounds either credulous enough to support the diagnosis or dishonest enough to dismiss. I am a "knowledge worker" who is doin' fine, has a lot of templated written work/report writing, and there is no way in hell I am justifying that kind of spending to my boss or my family.
"I firmly believe this technology will create business value" is so obviously and categorically different from "Humanity has birthed a silicon god that I have also developed romantic feelings for" that I'm not sure if your comment is even trying to be in good faith
What sort of bad faith would even apply here? idgaf if poster x or y has psychosis or not. "$200 a month is classic addict behavior" seems pretty spot-on to me though, I just don't want to have to pay it, too.
You can't justify $200/month in spending to your boss? Many people charge more than that per single billable hour. I would put your salary side by side with that number, which is your boss's perspective, and reconsider.
Fully loaded costs for an average employee at a bigco are scary. Not $200 but significantly higher than the number on your W2 by the time the company pays vacation, benefits, unemployment insurance, etc.
I've seen people try to argue for resources using reasonable but abstract arguments, and it just never works. The fact of the matter is that I want $200/month, on top of my other asks, and that comes out of somebody's budget. I just don't see folks snapping their fingers and $200 a month (discounted for now!) appears. Good for the other guy I was replying to if that's the case! I just don't see it though.
I think is the classic dilemma where people don’t know how to value their time.
Typical tech worker costs a company around $100/hour minimum. That $200 subscription cost can look mighty attractive if it saves some time or mental load.
I don’t think there is anything about addiction or spooky with that math. I suspect a lot of this is coming from tokenmaxxing firms but on the flip side on our small team, we end up spending about $200 per person per month for tokens using tools like Cursor. We feel the spend is justified with measurable value.
> I fought for years trying to convince my colleagues to write good commit messages. Now Claude is writing great commit messages but since *I'm no longer looking at code* - I never see them. I don't think Claude uses them either.
It's relevant because the fact that it's religious organization was an important fact in the judge's ruling. From the article:
> If Kars4Kids resumes advertising, [Judge Apkarian] wrote, its ads must contain “an express, audible disclosure of its religious affiliation and the geographic location of its primary beneficiaries and the age of the beneficiaries, specifying whether they aim for children or families, or both.”
It would depend on what the precise federal/state law regulating charities is - it sounds, to me, (I'm a Kiwi, but heard one of their ads on the radio today in an Uber in SF) like they need to be more specific about what charity they're raising money for - the after just said "for charity".
I'm sure you'd agree that if I was advertising in the name of kids to raise money for a charity, and it happened to be that the particular charity I was raising money for had determines it should give Hamas money to help those kids, that potential donors would prefer to know where exactly their money was going to.
It's not at all wild if the charity presents itself as non-discriminatory (ostensibly to deceive "outsiders" into misguided donations) while specifically benefiting the ethno-religious group of its administration.
The religious disclosure requirement feels like it may be a 1st amendment violation. Also perhaps even the rest of it as “compelled speech” (why does the judge decide how they fix their ads?) is it typical for charities to disclose exactly how they use their funds in ads? I don’t think I’ve ever seen that.
I agree the ads shouldn’t be misleading of course.
Next you’ll tell me that UNICEF isn’t exclusively saving starving orphans in Africa.
Cyan isn't between green and blue, at least not completely. If you take green and blue, you won't be able to represent a good chunk of cyan hues. It feels greenish and blueish, but is neither, and is broader than any combination of the two, which is partly why some bright cyan objects (like the bird eggs on Wikipedia) look kind of unnaturally intense. Those eggs are a bright, slightly blue-leaning cyan.
That went from a fun, interesting experience, to wondering if this is how SCP 3125 was going to get me, as the entire screen seemed to become a wild glowing green long after the animation likely ended.
funny thing is that I would have said cyan was blue going into this, but the outcome had me classifying the boundary at "more blue than 93% of the population" -- meaning that I classed cyan as green when asked, without even remotely questioning it.
I believe the original idea of the Constitution was that most things would be regulated at the state level.
This is pretty much already the case with marijuana, where it's illegal at the federal level, but in practice if it's legal in your state then it's legal.
"Pretty much" is doing quite a bit of work there. The feds ignoring marijuana use in states that have legalized or decriminalized it is the DoJ actively deciding not to prosecute MJ cases. They could absolutely send the FBI or whatever into a state with legalized marijuana and raid dispensaries and arrest people if they wanted to.
What exactly are you implying? It sounds to me like you're saying that if it's impossible to make a product safe, then there shouldn't be any safety requirements. I think a more sensible position is that if it's impossible to make a product safe, then it should be illegal to build.
reply