I don't know what Sun's strategy was in the 2000s, but doing all of the R&D to develop exotic new hardware and then focusing the sales force on software seems like they're getting the worst of both worlds.
Sure, I'm not saying that IBM's switch to services is some brilliant panacea for all proprietary hardware makers, just citing it as one of the market changes at the time that Sun seemed unprepared for.
What's interesting is that the other RISC outfit at the time, little old Acorn in the UK, did manage to adapt their proprietary chip business to the future of compute and now we all use many many ARM processors every day.
So clearly there was still a hardware route available, just again: a huge product/engineering shift.
It didn't hurt that ARM was spun out entirely. The computer side of Acorn was wound up in 1998/9, and then the remnant of that went onto DSL boxes, exiting by getting picked up by Broadcom for £366 million.
I think the point he's actually making is that if we start training AIs or designing AIs as if they're conscious, we might be more likely to create future AIs that are either very good at persuading people that they are conscious or AIs that are actually conscious, which will have major societal repercussions.
Yes, but then we collapse two different groups with isolated influences and philosophies into one group, with the associated penchant for groupthink.
I'm beginning to believe that, in our hyperconnected world, the best way for a group of people to explore a wide surface of ideas might actually be to deliberately scale back inter-group communication and intentionally subdivide into silos to avoid all converging on the same thing.
I've struggled to protect eletronics. Waterproof enclosures all fail over time. Though I have some ideas for immersion in mineral oil. But finding actuators that could work has been a bit of a struggle. These look cool, though maybe not something one could run off 5V :) Ill keep looking around
How are you determining how much oomph Claude gives a particular question? When I ask Claude Chat to e.g. summarize a document, it does this and returns a summary inline, whereas cowork does a bunch of tool calls and intermediate steps, eventually writing a document to disk. How does new claude know how deep to go?
The article contends that evaluations from Irregular helped prompt these incidents, because the prompts in the evals didn't tightly scope the systems to be evaluated or the methods to be used. It also contends that the faulty sandbox operated by Irregular is at fault.
They're probably right that having more defensively written prompts and a better sandbox could have prevented some of these incidents, but:
1. I don't think "well you didn't tell the model not to illegally hack third party organizations in your prompt" is a particularly convincing argument.
2. We don't know whether the blame for misconfiguring the sandbox lies with Anthropic or Irregular.
I'm thankful that this article is bringing up the supply chain of vendors to these labs, as that is often a place where significant sketchiness gets buried. However, the ideas that this is some Israeli EA conspiracy to hype up AI extinction risk seems unsupported by the facts to me.
TV host Jimmy Kimmel says his interview with Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico will not air on television due to pressure from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
Speaking on his talk show, Jimmy Kimmel Live!, Kimmel said the FCC, under President Donald Trump, had "threatened" him and his show "based on simple traditional editorial decisions, guest bookings it would seem they don't like".
The BBC contacted the FCC for comment. The White House denied the FCC had threatened Kimmel over his interview with Talarico or any other candidate, accusing the host of "play-acting".
Looking at the distance the interview is not even the most interesting, the most extraordinary fact is that the current Texas attorney general, on the job for more than 10 years:
- Had his own defense lawyer endorse his Democratic opponent.
- Eight of his own senior aides reported him to the FBI.
- A security camera recorded him taking another lawyer’s $1,000 pen.
- Accumulated a 15 property portfolio worth $9 million while earning a $153,750 government salary.
- Sixty Republicans in the Texas House voted to impeach him.
- Accepted a $100,000 legal defense gift from a businessman whose company had faced a Medicaid billing investigation.
>Kimmel said that since the show began over 20 years ago, he has interviewed “Americans who are running for office with no problem at all”, noting that this ranged “from Hillary Clinton to Ted Cruz to Donald Trump himself”.
>“I interviewed Donald Trump when he was running for president in 2015,” Kimmel said. Trump came back for another interview, just before he became the Republican nominee in 2016.
Banking on public sentiment to reduce adoption of a profitable technology could be dangerous. There's also a lot of hate for fossil fuels, gambling, health insurance, etc.
You're right, but fossil fuels industry were well established when people started to criticize them, you can even be against fossil fuels (I am) but locked in a system when your job is 30 miles away from your home without public transports. Even your toothbrush uses fossil fuels. A massive infrastructure has been built around fossil fuels, not easy to dismantle.
For AI it is different, it is just the beginning, leading companies are not even profitable and may never be if the majority hate this technology. VC funding will not last forever and corporate customers will not spend without limit like VC did.
I am not saying that "people are always right", but if an unexpected majority of people hates it, it does not help to keep a business running.
Those are all arguably bad things though? I don't think mob mentality should dictate the policy, that can lead to historically bad outcomes (i.e. fascism) since popular opinion can be manipulated through propaganda, but the criticism of the average person against AI ("they will take our jobs", "it will increase my electric bill", etc) are very valid and should weight on the pace we are developing this technology. AI mostly benefits corporations and capital, not the average person. I like the technology from an engineering standpoint and appreciate it can be a force multiplier, but I also agree with the complaints about it.
I disagree. Even if models remained fixed at Fable 5 capability (which they won't in a pacing scenario), improvements in cost, reliability, and product/workflow integration can still realize massive value and justify AI labs' current valuations. IMO The rest of the value chain is lagging pretty far behind the models right now.
reply