Well one thing is, they'd sell shares to pay the taxes. Then dilute their own ownership of the thing (Tesla, Amazon) and it would serve as another form of wealth distribution.
Charitably speaking: I suspect the commenter above you was indicating that the government should have a stock portfolio you can transfer stocks to to pay taxes in a non-taxable event type scenerio.
If you're taxing wealth (and not income) then switching stocks into cash doesn't change the wealth. Then use the cash to pay the taxes which reduces the wealth.
I believe the argument was that for some people, switching stocks into cash actually do change the wealth, because they own such a large % they are meaningfully moving the market by selling (the "paper money" argument).
And the answer to that was "if you're so afraid that selling will tank the value of the stock, then we [the government] will happily take your taxes as stocks directly, and we take on the risk that selling it will reduce its value".
> And the answer to that was "if you're so afraid that selling will tank the value of the stock, then we [the government] will happily take your taxes as stocks directly, and we take on the risk that selling it will reduce its value".
Yes indeed. It's basically saying "don't bother starting everything because the government will gradually just own it all anyway".
> If these agents are enabled with explicit network enabled tools, its trivial to monitor their inputs/outputs.
For whatever reason, the AI companies are (or at least were) not doing this kind of classification online during their testing runs, and instead just checking transcripts after the fact. This is more clear in the Anthropic reports about their incidents, for example:
"The earliest incidents date to April ... We began our transcript review on Thursday, July 23, and stopped all cyber evaluations the same day after identifying transcripts where Claude may have accessed the internet"[1]
I agree that it is crazy and negligent! I don't think it's good for their business, though -- who wants to use a model that will just cheat instead of doing the job you asked for?
> My naiveté extends to why there is such concern with "losing control of agents" when the above measures seem so doable. It might take a law but it seems doable.
At some point, if you are making an LLM in order to use it for useful work, it really benefits you to give it broad network egress.
There are many things about the laws of physics that push a cancer cure a long time away! Biology is downstream of physics, and the biology of cancer is so vast that the very concept of a "cure for cancer" is almost nonsensical.
We'd be much better off building colonies on the bottom of the ocean than on the moon or mars (or a cylinder floating at a lagrange point.)
After we run out of space on the ocean I suppose it will make sense to consider space colonies, but I think you are really underestimating the technical challenges.
They were pointing out that "It's not a Waymo-bashing article, it cautions against the long term effects on research." does not sound like LLM-generated text.
It would sound kind of LLM-y if you had said "It's not an anti-Waymo article. It's an article about how assistive technology is quietly degrading research."
(Of course, the correct approach to detecting AI is not counting LLM-isms, but feeding long-form text through a classifier model and picking up statistical correlations that are more in-distribution with LLM text than human text.)
AI detection in long-form content is a problem well-suited to training a classifier model. We have tons of verifiably-not-AI text from before 2022, and you can create tons of verifiably-AI text. As language drifts over the next few decades, it may get more difficult. But right now it is quite a manageable problem for languages with large pre-2022 text corpora available online.
The reason why AI detection tools other than Pangram are awful is because they are not really trying to solve the problem -- they just want to appear good enough to convince people to use them.
I'm happy Claude told you it isn't dangerous. However, other people don't want to read your LLM output. Please respect other people's time by only sharing things you wrote yourself.
I am intentionally sharing something Claude wrote to counter the paid floods of AI doom-saying and catastrophizing. It is very intentionally not something I wrote. People are welcome to challenge it and I will have Claude read the responses. Please do push back on Claude and do not be gentle. Be brutally honest.
It was definitely written with significant LLM assistance. It's very obvious, and the essay is not good.
> The Waymo effect: how AI is *quietly* making research less collaborative
> The Waymo arrived with the serene confidence of a machine that has never once worried about where to find parking, and I climbed into the back seat, glanced instinctively at the driver’s seat to say hello, and found myself nodding politely at an empty chair.
> No obligation to make conversation. No silent negotiation over the radio. A guilt-free space to be alone with one's thoughts, finish an email, or take a call en route without the awkwardness about conducting it in front of a stranger. The car was quiet, smooth and entirely undemanding.
> The collaborator’s inconvenience, in other words, is *not a bug* in the collaboration; it largely is the collaboration. The value of another mind *lies exactly in the ways* it refuses to be an extension of your own.
reply