This is clearly hostile to the idea of civilian oversight, but the absurd scale of it is rather funny to me.
If you put $100 into US Treasury bonds (and for approximation's sake, say they have a 1% annual yield) then after 1700 years you would have 2.2 billion. And of course, if the US collapses before then, they wouldn't be able to collect on the FOIA fee anyway.
I can't help but point out that these companies have a documented history of violating basically every ToS on the internet, as well as enough spare compute to burn 300B tokens on a hunch about Navier-Stokes. Given they have a clear financial incentive to lock in a majority of the US economy into perpetual API subscriptions, why wouldn't they use their means to reinforce the hegemony?
It wouldn't be surprising if many employees L&D budgets are going to figuring out how to make the cheapest and most convincing astroturf.
There are many examples of people being charged with crimes as a result of writing software, [0][1] are two. OpenAI is a bit different because they have enough political influence, and money, to openly subvert justice.
In a way, this task is perfectly suited for LLMs. To even understand the problem statement, much less the proof or Lean, is an extremely specialized skill. The overwhelming majority of people who are aware of this news simply don't have the capacity to call BS. Maybe there are a few thousand people in the world who could, and it seems they haven't yet, but indeed it's only been a few weeks.
The more familiar analogy was when I look at the code that Claude spews for my partner. They take it at face value and hope it works. I usually find it very problematic, but only because I knew what to look for.
Is there any question the person who was baselessly charged with CSAM, then terrorism when they realized it was so obviously untenable, as a pretense to detain him would've been treated differently if he were on a different "side"?
>the person who was baselessly charged with CSAM, then terrorism
Source? Are we still talking about Samuel Tunick? The article doesn't mention it, and so far as I can tell he was only charged at the border crossing for obstruction.
Not "charged" as in indicted but the search was based on an accusation that he had CSAM on the device. But his political proclivities make it pretty transparent that CSAM was an invented excuse to investigate and punish a political dissident.
If you put $100 into US Treasury bonds (and for approximation's sake, say they have a 1% annual yield) then after 1700 years you would have 2.2 billion. And of course, if the US collapses before then, they wouldn't be able to collect on the FOIA fee anyway.
reply