> This issue has been automatically locked since it was closed and has not had any activity for 7 days. If you're experiencing a similar issue, please file a new issue and reference this one if it's relevant.
Interesting, because I’d choose not to fly with an entire carrier because they have chosen to implement Starlink and support a Nazi pedophile, but horses for courses.
> "We have these two red lines... Not allowing Anthropic's AI to perform mass surveillance of Americans, and prohibiting its AI from powering fully-autonomous weapons..."
Anthropic literally said the same, but seem to be getting positive PR.
The difference is that Anthropic actually dotted the i's and crossed the t's whereas OpenAI fell for the weaselwords and is now desperately trying to renegotiate.
OpenAI didn't fall for anything, they knew exactly what they were signing and went ahead anyway, then started gaslighting people about what they had signed.
For a lot of people (me included) the lack of integrity and the gaslighting is what has soured them on OpenAI, rather than them signing up to build surveillance and weaponry.
To non-US citizens, all AI companies are as dangerous as each other, OpenAI just really botched the optics here.
It's disgusting honestly. There are likely at least 136 directly reported civilian and child deaths linked to the operations where their services were used. And they are very proud.
So much left unsaid. So much implied. Let’s make it explicit and talk about it. Here are some follow questions that reasonable people will ask:
What was Anthropic’s role in the Maduro operation? (Or we can call it state-sponsored kidnapping.) Who knew what and when? Did A\ find itself in a position where it contradicted its core principles?
More broadly, how does moral culpability work in complex situations like this?
How much moral culpability gets attributed to a helicopter manufacturer used in the Maduro operation? (Assuming one was; you can see my meaning I hope.)
P.S. Traditional programming is easy in comparison to morality.
> Binance holds about 87% of USD1, the stablecoin issued by a Trump family crypto venture—a greater concentration than any other major stablecoin has at a single exchange, roughly $4.7 billion of the $5.4 billion total supply.
But that is surely offset by Twitter, which is doing great business.
reply