If a permanent injunction is granted in the Wolff case, does that mean Anthropic would have to re-train all of their available models, but explicitly exclude those books from the dataset?
It would be interesting to know which model is internally viewed as being best at jokes, I have a personal humor benchmark and so far models will either steal jokes (from comedians like Maria Bamford), or write something very unfunny.
When I was first learning to have agents interact I had a little script to orchestrate a model telling a joke, a critic collaborator helping develop material and an audience emoji rank them.
A favorite…
Prompt: “Tell a joke about mother in laws”
Gemma2 response: “What’s the best kind of mother in law? A dead one.” 0_o
There is a lot of money involved in getting Bolsonaro back in power:
> Brazil’s government announced Friday that annual deforestation in the Amazon fell to its lowest level since records began in 1988 [. . .] During Jair Bolsonaro’s presidency, from 2019 to 2022, Amazon deforestation surged by about 60% [0]
This highlights the greatest difference between these two candidates (imo), one wants to preserve the 'lungs of the Earth', the other wants to rip them out for profit and give the world a middle finger on their way out.
If you have a high enough degree of certainty somebody could have a 99% chance of winning with an expected 50.1%/49.9% split. For the split to mean anything you need to know the confidence/variance.
They, I presume, intended to reference each separate datum; the first being "80% chance Bolsonaro wins" and the second being the most likely expected split.
I would guess they encountered it via a vaguely classical adjacent education or reading background, in that a (non geodesy / survey related) datum is a singular thing given, granted, assumed as fact, used in a reasoning chain.
Because the rain in most of Brazil depend on the Amazon. If the forest is gone, we will have desertification in the most populous regions of Brazil. The southeast is already facing droughts periodically, and it will get worse with more deforestation. With less rain we will produce less food, which means not only that food will become more expensive in Brazil (and a lot of people will face hunger), but we also depend on the agricultural output to avoid a trade deficit. Less rain means less food exports which means less dollars getting into Brazil, which will, among other things, turn Brazil into a hotter Argentine.
No seriously. There's a flying river, kilometers high in the sky, that goes from the Amazon to various Brazilian regions. It transports more water than the Amazon river itself (which is already the river with the highest discharge of the world). The water source is transpiration from Amazonian trees. Without the trees, the flying river is gone
I'm all for industrializing Brazil, I'm not defending the current economic model. I'm just describing the Brazilian economy the way it is.
Also, it's not really possible to industrialize the country by destroying the Amazon. There is no button that turns the forest into a top tier semiconductor industry or anything like that, that's pure fantasy. And the people destroying the forest now is doing this to raise cattle to export meat, exactly the thing you are criticizing.
The only thing that destroying the forest will accomplish is to make Brazil inhospitable, desertified, unable to support its huge population. That's not climate nonsense like you say in another comment.
> Also, it's not really possible to industrialize the country by destroying the Amazon.
Flávio Bolsonaro proposed the creation of railways in the Brazilian north and northeast. These efforts are always paralyzed by leftist environmental NGOs, and leftist parties like PSOL have taken these environmental battles all the way up to the supreme court.
So, do you support Bolsonaro's proposal?
Are you prepared to sacrifice the climate for national development?
Sure. Industrialization comes first though. We can care about jungles if we ever reach superpower status.
This climate nonsense is a tax on developing nations. We're sacrificing for the planet, meanwhile the US puts a couple centuries of distance between us.
Brazil's poor industrialisation isn't an issue caused by caring about the climate though. Destroying the Amazon to continue the same bullshit of exporting unprocessed minerals won't improve Brazilian society.
Why exactly is Brazil disadvantaged about climate policies to industrialise given it has enormous potential in renewables (hydro, solar, wind)? Could even have more nuclear power. Industrialisation accelerates with cheap energy which Brazil has plenty of.
Have you thought that maybe the nonsense is coming from inside your skull?
Flávio Bolsonaro proposed the creation of railways in the Brazilian north and northeast. Historically, efforts like these always end up abandoned due to complaints from leftist environmental NGOs. Leftist parties like PSOL have taken these environmental battles all the way up to the supreme court, which just sits on it without deciding for years.
So, are you prepared to ignore the complaints of the environmentalists?
It's a stupid proposal, railways should cover the most populous and economically active areas first since rail in Brazil is nearly non-existent outside of transporting raw mined ore. Replace the fucking trucks going up and down Brazil's south-southeast, which historically the car lobby blocked that to push for more trucks and cars. I'm very sure environmentalists would support a push to replace those trucks with rail.
Are you prepared to understand you are being swindled?
Unfortunately I have a few like you in my family, completely rotten brains from antipetismo and falling for stupidity like "building railways on the most difficult and least economically active area of the country", do you understand you are being lied to?
Nobody is "falling" for anything. I just used Bolsonaro's debate promise for the sake of argument. I agree that we should keep prioritizing the development of the south and southeast, and I have nothing against new railways there.
As for the rest of your comment, the truth is I don't particularly care either way. There is exactly one thing, and one thing alone, that I want from this government:
Impeachment and imprisonment of the supreme court judges.
They have four years to put those judges in jail. If they do, I am satisfied. If not, I will never vote for them ever again. It's that simple. I'm aware of the possibility that they could turn out to be swindlers. I'm using frontier AIs to monitor every last one of them.
You're cutting down your rainforest (one of your greatest assets) so middle/upper class people in Sao Paulo can do Churrasco 3X a week and have so much meat left over they have to throw it away. It has nothing to do with technological development, sorry.
Amazon region is rich in rare earths, which are of industrial and geopolitical importance. Should Brazil ever develop advanced semiconductor industries, we might need to exploit those natural resources.
Sure, I won't object if you have a few mines for rare earths, if you stop deforestation for cattle feed (90%) and deforestation for cheap metals (iron etc - which is the other 10%). 1% for rare earths would be fine tbh. However this is not why the rainforest is being cut down. It's being cut down so that people can eat beef multiple times per week (with the resulting public health crisis that will come from that).
Brazil is literally the world's soy farm, and even that position is shaky since China continues to invest in Africa to cut us out and France continues to block European economic deals with Brazil.
Why on Earth would I want to stop deforestation? Sounds like something that will obviously harm the only major industry we still have.
Because deforestation will mean your farmers across the country won't get reliable rainfall. That sounds like something will obviously harm your entire agriculture industry and also put your food supply at risk.
And for what? Completely unnecessary decadent meat consumption (50% more meat consumption per capita than Germany)? Good luck with that.
> And for what? Completely un-necessary decadent meat consumption?
Lula won his 2022 election by promising that the average Brazilian would once again be able to eat prime cuts of meat.
Not only did he not deliver, he actually made it even more unaffordable to eat meat. Instead of course correcting, he doubled down on it. He is literally quoted saying things like "if it's too expensive, don't buy it" and "if there's no meat, eat eggs or salad". Four years of this.
He is now hours away from losing the election to the first born son of Bolsonaro, the guy who he persecuted through his allies in the supreme court, who he smugly said would never leave jail and return to power.
Words can barely describe just how thoroughly his party was eviscerated in the 1st round of elections earlier this month. I've literally never seen Brazilians utterly wipe out so many left wing politicians in a single day in my entire life. Even Bolsonaro's ex-wife got elected. Bolsonaro's party alone has absolute majority in the senate now, and major chunk of congress. People are literally comparing it to Nazi Germany. Even the "untouchable" supreme court was intimidated to the point it started trying to make peace with everyone they were actively persecuting only days ago. It resulted in the release of political prisoners. Watching it live was such a treat. I literally saw the smugness and confidence get wiped off their faces in real time. They thought they were going to win straight up in the 1st round of the election, and by the end of it they looked like they were attending a funeral. It brings a smile to my face just thinking about it.
Are you absolutely sure you want to to disdain our "completely unnecessary decadent meat consumption" ?
And where do you think the water comes from for that 'irrigation technology'? Rainfall.
> Are you absolutely sure you want to to disdain our "completely unnecessary decadent meat consumption" ?
Brazil has one of the highest meat consumptions per capita in the world. 50% higher than Germany. 40% higher than France. More than twice the world average. So yes.
> Brazil has one of the highest meat consumptions per capita in the world.
So what?
> So yes.
Welp. Anyone who thinks like you do will get voted out with extreme prejudice. WEF's little 2030 agenda and meat consumption predictions can go to hell.
You say that as though the Amazon is the only place on earth rich in rare earth minerals. It isn't - many places have them, a number have more than the Amazon.
Rare earths are not rare - the 'free minerals' are rare (non existent) to find "just laying about" as they bind to other elements and compounds in complex hard to unbind ways.
What the planet is rather short of is good, high quality, original condition rain forests.
It's the meat supply not consumption :) Very disingenuous to include world average there too. The number is brought down but countries whose main diets are vegetable based.
Brazil's 104.6 is what is available after net exports. With exports it's more like 148(!)
And yes of course vegetable based diets are included. That's a perfectly reasonable and in many ways healthier diet, followed by individuals in countries across the world. It makes no sense to exclude it.
Seems like a false dichotomy, don't see how sacrificing jungle would get Brazil a top-tier semiconductor industry.
And I guess the native peoples living in the Amazon are not university leftists.
I'm not into Brazilian politics, the little I know seems to indicate that it's a choice between a rock and a hard place (both seem to have corruption allegations). The objective aspect I can judge is whom Trump strongly supports. US influence in South America is a pretty bloody chapter in history.
Instead of actually reindustrializing Brazil, he anesthetized the population with handouts and lined his pockets. Meanwhile, banks are literally raking in record profits.
This was the most concerning part of that report for me:
>Some banks also saw agents contact call centers or take actions that appeared independent of user instructions, and executives say they often can't tell a human from an agent, or an authorized agent from a rogue one.
> Normally, America’s highest value exports are either oil, pharmaceuticals, or aircraft and their parts. Not now. Starting in October 2025, the value of gold exports has topped all other categories almost every month.
From what I’m reading, the article does rank exports by value.
Relative to quantity, the price of gold might have less to do with why it’s the top of the list, but gold being more valuable in general might still be the main reason it’s at the top.
For example:
June
Oil at $1 a barrel
Gold at $10 a ton
100 barrels of oil exported - $100
9 tons of gold exported - $90
By value, oil is the top export.
——-
July
Oil at $1 a barrel
Gold at $9 a ton
100 barrels of oil exported - $100
12 tons of gold exported - $108
By value, gold is now the top export.
——-
Even though the price of gold dropped—-the inverse of our current situation to illustrate an extreme—-the general higher price of gold is more relevant to the ranking than its quantity increase.
The rocket flip part looks like CGI, in my opinion. I get the same feeling as when I see CGI on some random B movie. Would be happy to be proven wrong if there was a crowd of people filming from their angle though.
Also "Beyond The Limits of Physics"... would any actual engineers at Tesla/SpaceX agree with that marketing statement?
reply