HackerLangs
トップ新着トレンドコメント過去質問紹介求人

throwaway27448

1,302 カルマ登録 5 か月前

コメント

throwaway27448
·1 時間前·議論
It's not even clear that ASI is a coherent concept.

But, I don't trust capital with either.
throwaway27448
·2 時間前·議論
Is there a commercial model out there now that wasn't trained on stolen data? Let's stop refering to these ghouls as "innovators": they're glorified bootleggers
throwaway27448
·3 時間前·議論
Why would you blame AI when there are dozens of other crises with far more evident impact already?
throwaway27448
·3 時間前·議論
That's also a bad look for any company who willingly hands its IP over
throwaway27448
·4 時間前·議論
> Steal

It's competition, buddy. If you don't think we got big the same way you're nuts. And anyone who is trying to kill tesla has my money.

Anyway, I don't think there's much worth stealing at the moment. Chinese models provide much better value than any american firm.

> but US could stop all of this by simply stopping their supply.

A) good luck trying to prevent access to a service and b) this is obvious cope. Of course the chinese can compete; there's no american magic beyond "having loads of money and nearby universities", which china has too.
throwaway27448
·5 時間前·議論
I think the chinese are doing just fine by themselves at this point
throwaway27448
·6 時間前·議論
Ok, so why did you bring this up in the context of boko haram? Do you think pets.com is trying to make a bomb?!
throwaway27448
·7 時間前·議論
> Generally when a seller in state X in the US sells to a buyer in a different state Y the consumer protection laws of state Y apply.

I've found the person who lives in California lol, no it does not work that way.
throwaway27448
·7 時間前·議論
And why would americans use regulated AI software when they could just buy it unregulated from china instead?

> If the fintech sector can do it, AI can too.

Fintech requires turning the number on a screen into something you can use to make a transaction. Good luck regulating... text.

For that matter, why would anyone want to live in a country where honest citizens have to use crippled software while criminals have full freedom?
throwaway27448
·7 時間前·議論
> If everyone is using LLMs then nobody has advantage

People with more capital will always have an advantage. This is a large part why the american market fails to produce convincing competition.
throwaway27448
·7 時間前·議論
...because terrorists in western africa are willing to follow american regulations? I hope this is satire.
throwaway27448
·8 時間前·議論
Only the boutique ones based in America
throwaway27448
·8 時間前·議論
This is why Russians now attack in teams of just two, down from dozens in 2022.
throwaway27448
·8 時間前·議論
It's never been particularly difficult to discern how to assemble a bomb, or C4, or napalm, or.... etc. Difficulty in accessibility of violence has never been what protected society. Except, I'm willing to bet, in FBI funding meetings.
throwaway27448
·8 時間前·議論
Because that's the shithole we live in. If you don't like it, take your head out of your ass and crucify a politician or move
throwaway27448
·8 時間前·議論
I don't see Mamdani as somehow invulnerable to lobbyists; but they realistically have little leverage over him.
throwaway27448
·8 時間前·議論
Oh, is new york in california?
throwaway27448
·12 時間前·議論
"Purpose" and "hope" (hell let's through "telos" in there) are inherently subjective terms. Conflating this with empirical observation of effect is simply not useful outside of certain political situations where you intentionally want to disregard intent. It's asinine unless accompanied with persuasion that intent is working against collective interests.

In most situations disregarding intent is not useful for getting things done unless you have unilateral power to override intent.

A better explanation is that John Deere, like the massive truck corporations that make pickups, was happy to take advantage of blatant loopholes.
throwaway27448
·12 時間前·議論
Of course, it also destroys the topsoil without careful management
throwaway27448
·12 時間前·議論
What isn't the result of politics? This is a bad explanation—how is there so little will to act in rational self interest?