Buckle up

Nukes. If you grew up in the 50s, 60s, 70s or 80s the specter of nuclear annihilation was always just around the corner.

Throw in the occasional bio-weapon scare, internet worm, Y2K, etc. there has always been something dangling over our heads that’s going to end it all.

But mostly nukes. Full-scale nuclear exchange would have been not much of a surprise had it happened.

Right, and this was and remains a very valid fear.

This is precisely why we need strict government regulation of open weight models. :wink:

…and it’ll involve BGP routing.

I added a specific rule to disallow saying “load bearing”. So Claude is now saying “load handling”

Be sure to avoid asking it to ignore the elephant

Depends on the sector. Lots of sectors are full of people for whom the mission is part of the comp. EdTech is one for sure.

I would imagine not too many folks work in AdTech to support the mission.

I work in EdTech - that's definitely part of it. It feels nice knowing that I'm positively contributing to something that was a net-good, especially with the specific project I spent something like five years working on.

Sure, it's not perfect - we live in a world run under a capitalist system - but it felt like a least-bad situation.

I’d imagine most books are read by people who don’t know much or anything about the author who wrote the book.

Likewise, even if the reader does know about the author and think the author is a bad person, they still read the book, watch the movie, listen to the song, etc

The reality is most people don’t get invested in the creators or the creation. It’s just a good story and all the meta-stuff doesn’t affect most people’s consumption.

So, that is to say, AI writing, music and all the other arts will be commercially successful.

Now, there will also be a market for human-created content, which people will consume specifically because the content is human-created.

There are a few other paths to these types of decisions that also don’t require overt malice.

The most prevalent, almost universal, is that macro strategy is set without consideration of what it really takes to accomplish the goals. So the discussions are framed by resource constraints and decisions are rationalized by those constraints.

Likewise, group discussions at high levels are almost always abstracted into corporate-speak that removes clarity to the point where nobody can even decipher the original intent. Honestly, even when thinking about decisions or talking 1 on 1, it’s easy to mask real consequences with obtuse language. It’s a coping mechanism for many.

It’s been extremely rare that I’ve ever heard anyone say anything that could be directly considered condoning unethical behavior. Establishing plausible deniability is an involuntary reflex for lots of people.

Generally the decisions made on the ground that seem like greed or malice are more often made as part of some survival strategy.

It’s all quite messy and disheartening, but inevitably human.

Using stolen credit cards, or chargebacks, to buy something, and then resell that thing, for profit.

"Why is this practice considered unethical?"

Next week: Shoplifting batteries and laundry detergent, and reselling it on Ebay. "Why is this practice considered unethical?"

Is it ethical?

It's token piracy, plain and simple.