Many words expended here to avoid asking an answerable question. Which complaints? Must I recapitulate the last 70 years of history of politics around science in the United States? You have fixated on a singular line from the article rather than reply substantively to anything I've said (which indeed responds to such complaints inasmuch as this is possible without hearing a specific one), because you have little interest in reaching a shared understanding of its subject material (you do not remotely care about any such historical complaints, or I would've heard one by now) relative to your desire to advance the culture war, as laid bare by your other comments. This sort of low-trust behavior, exacerbated by pretending otherwise, is typical of your unfortunate mindset.
The tactics of discourse you employ are tired and show no signs of improving. You've unfortunately lost the courtesy of a further response from me.
Sorry, I'm not in the business of responding thoughtfully to low effort questions slung rapid-fire over the fence, which moreover take nothing I've said into account. Case in point, this comment; it seems innocuous but would take an extreme amount of effort on my part to reply to what is, I suspect, something you've made up your mind about.
I think it's clear from your other comments cited here that you're exactly who I'm talking about: a gullible soldier of the culture war who has perfected the art of
wasting endless quantities of time arguing online.
That is an enormous budget cut; it is exactly an evisceration. And the general trend is to cut both science and its application. Trials for life-saving treatments _by biotech companies attempting to commercialize them_ are being halted or cancelled due to the science cuts and general corruption.
Many people have many complaints; many should be ignored. There's lots of money (and indeed, huge market incentive) to commercialize potentially successful science, and as such it has been done consistently. Curiosity-driven science must feed it, and the idea that it does not unambiguously benefit society at large, with extreme and breathtaking return on investment, is a fantasy perpetuated by those susceptible to the idiotic culture war.
You and people you know will lead worse and less fulfilling lives due to this. You, or someone you love, will likely die of causes that would have been preventable without this destruction of domestic science. Academic culture undoubtedly needed reform, but this evisceration bent on shortsighted retribution will help absolutely nobody.
I wouldn't normally reply again, but please try and take my arguments in the good faith and appeal to the heart and humanity that they were given. I think you're quite capable of reading what I've written and responding to it coherently; consequently, I also think you must be aware that you haven't done this in the heat of the disagreement. It's only if we're charitable, not cynical, about this stuff that the world may improve. Thanks. :)
Anyone with kids could tell you that this is an ethically vacant position to hold. Particularly given the social network effects of not being on these platforms and the addiction engineering that goes into keeping you on them, especially at an age when you're prone to feeling insecure about your place in the world. The effects are pronounced in children, but still hold for adults.
Anyway, I think I've said all I possibly can to educate you. I hope you can take something from it.
This is tired and reductivist reasoning deployed only by those rationalizing wrongs, and immediately recognizable by nearly everybody as such. My kids could tell you what's wrong with this thinking. I believe that working a job where I would knowingly contribute to mass mental illness (including but not limited to inducing teenage depression and body image issues leading to suicide), the destruction of liberal democracy and free society, mass surveillance unlike anything constructed before in the history of mankind, and even genocide falls on the wrong side of the line. If you have convinced yourself otherwise, this is a weight you must carry. Acting so callously against your fellow humans always exacts a price, knowingly or not; it requires destroying part of your capacity to care for other people.
Nope, sorry, I have absolutely had the option to do something similar and emphatically declined. I generally don't care to tell anyone this, either, outside the rare instances when it organically comes up as it did here. I want to see myself as a good person with a positive effect (as much as feasible) on the world, and taking such jobs is deeply incompatible with that.
I am completely willing to forgive Meta (and Palantir etc) employees who quit their job and donate their blood money (all wages above some low multiplier of median US SWE salary, adjusted for cost of living) to a reputable charity of their choice. Preferably one focused on repairing the incredible harm inflicted on other humans to which they have been a proactive and willing accomplice. Anything less than that does not constitute genuine remorse; we do not let millionaire criminals keep their illicit earnings because they apologized on the stand.
That nearly none will do this (I suspect most would be irritated at even the suggestion) tells you all you need to know about them.
edit: The disagreement is unsurprising, but I'd like to hear the reasoning against this. If you truly believed you'd wronged humanity at a job you voluntarily took for its high pay over all the others you could have easily gotten, keeping the exorbitant excesses of money should be unpalatable to you. That's how having a conscience works. Anything else is just a vacuous attempt to regain social standing.
You need tools sufficient to do the job in an economical way, optimizing for both cost and quality. That is what 'best' means. We don't give every engineer all the resources under the sun, only what is appropriate.
I suspect many will realize millions more dollars are being spent than needed to achieve the highest marginal productivity gains, and reallocate accordingly. Who wants more of their money going to developer tooling, rather than bonuses?
> Since it is the unverified SMP config of the kernel
I don't disagree with your point (formal verification does not rid you of all bugs), but this is not the subject of the linked issue. This was a bug in an unverified path.
Yeah, they showed their true colors there. This, compounded with the fact that they're the only frontier lab with no open models, tells you all you need to know. Tired of the insanely patronizing (+ conveniently and overwhelmingly self-serving) attitude out of them. My goal is to own my computing and be able to choose what to do with it.
Intentionally and silently sabotaging work done with Claude whenever Anthropic decides it is appropriate is unacceptable behavior, and comically tone deaf given the state of open models. Why on earth would I ever pay for a malicious product?
> People usually become billionaires via having “super-powers,” i.e., very unusual abilities, at least within some context.
There are certainly sometimes unusual abilities in a positive sense, but the common case likely falls closer to having an unusual degree of sociopathy. It is unclear to me how else one could view the state of perfectly solvable human suffering in the world and continue to prioritize accumulating wealth over all else, moreover and overwhelmingly at the cost of being party to the suffering itself. Indeed, I suspect having such callous disregard for your fellow person is prerequisite to encountering these unfathomable sums.
When people with an intact capacity for empathy come into huge amounts of money I think it's far more common to give a large proportion of it away (say, Jane Street workers have a culture of doing this). And thus you only stay 'comfortably' wealthy, rather than accumulating so much that it distorts society around your singular existence.
The tactics of discourse you employ are tired and show no signs of improving. You've unfortunately lost the courtesy of a further response from me.