Very probably. I really don't buy their "AI is going to kill us" claims. If you can release something better than your competition you wouldn't want to slow down that.
Most of the people I know working at AI Labs believe it. I think surveys back this up.
We have a situation where the people running the labs are claiming it's a big risk. Outside experts not working for the labs are claiming it's a big risk.
It's pretty rare for all the CEOs in the industry to write letters and testify to Congress that they should be regulated and law should be put in place for safety limits.
No, what you would do is stop your own private development immediately, get in touch with the government by any means necessary, and build a coalition as fast as possible to stop the technology from continuing and put hard regulation (determined by the government, not dario) on the tech.
Clearly they aren't that scared.
If I hold a gun to your head and tell you to fork over your wallet, you will do it, because you sense imminent threat to life. Yet somehow we're to believe these people have the equivalent of a technological gun to their heads but are choosing to keep their wallets?
> No, what you would do is stop your own private development immediately, get in touch with the government by any means necessary, and build a coalition as fast as possible to stop the technology from continuing and put hard regulation (determined by the government, not dario) on the tech.
What you're missing is that they've tried repeatedly to do this over the past years, and the government has repeatedly said that they do not want to put hard regulation on the tech. The previous administration was discussing putting a couple of soft regulations in place; the current administration doesn't want to limit progress at all because they want to stay ahead of China. So the option you're describing just isn't available.
First of all, I do not think they've been pursuing that to the degree that you think.
But even assuming that's the case, the natural thing to do in that scenario is to not contribute to the development of the doomsday device. But anthropic's approach seems to be to help build the supposed doomsday device faster?
The only generous interpretation is that Anthropic thinks that only they, the people at Anthropic have the morals/intelligence/whatever needed to build the doomsday device ethically, which is basically the perspective of an egoist despot and which should terrify you.
The more generous interpretation would be that Anthropic thinks they know how to build powerful AI systems in such a way that they will not become doomsday devices at all. They don't claim to be the only people with this knowledge and do not argue that their competitors should be shut down.
I don't find it hard to believe that eventually some AI may kill a number of humans.
You give it instructions to do something, it goes off the rails and after a certain point starts having like malware, destroying things to accomplish its goal. Depending on what it destroys, it may kill humans.
With this said, I'm not exactly in disagreement with the view that AI companies with upcoming IPOs are using fearmongering to convince people that their models are very powerful and to also block others from competing with them.
Modern phones are all phablets and it sucks but it's the only format they offer. Smaller phones are nicer to hold and nicer to use for everyday tasks. My thumb can actually reach things. At least AI will no doubt reduce the need for pressing buttons.
Manufacturers want phones to be thin so the only way to fit in the battery life is for the whole phone to be larger. In case you didn't notice it's really really difficult to find a side on photo of the iPhone Duo closed. They don't want to show the thickness.
Note that every time a company comes up with a choice between a smaller phone and a larger phone (up to some limit when you get into phablet territory), the larger phone sells in much, much higher numbers. Apple themselves tried the Mini, it sold at best a few percent of how well the regular phones sell.
While you, personally, might prefer smaller phones, and that's a perfectly valid preference, you are very much in the minority.
The original "phablet" was the Samsung Galaxy Note, considered comically large. At 147mm x 83mm, it's about the same size as the iPhone 18 Pro (150mm x 72mm)
But, and this is probably what you meant, the iPhone 17 has a bigger screen. That's because recent phones got rid of the bezels, so they can fit more screen in the same body. That's why they have taller aspect ratios.
Uh, yes? The first widespread usage of the word "phablet" I can recall was regarding the HTC HD2, which had a whopping 4.3" display and some people were losing their minds saying nobody would want to carry that in their pockets.
It seems like it would be really useful for a frequent traveler/commuter, to be able to watch something on a flight/bus ride. I would definitely consider it if I were in that demographic
I bought my Steam Deck for a similar imagined use case but I find myself way too aware of the visibility of a larger than average screen to all those around me.
Clamshell phones were essentially the default design 2 decades ago and people have been talking about folding phones ever since, really. Folding is a unique way to overcome the ever present size issues/comments; however, it looks like the manufacturers have taken an alternate approach and used folding to double the size rather than halve it.
The purpose of the og razr clamshell was to extend the small device into something that reached both your ear and your mouth; not so much to have an increased screen surface/working space. Now we're trying to fold the phablets into something that still fits in our pockets.
It's barely worse phone, and it's a much better table. My argument for the tablet is that if it was a separate device I would basically never use it because it's inconvenient.
It has a smaller display with a crease[1] and has less battery than a tablet. The screen is even smaller than an iPad mini. IMO that form factor only really works for like a Kindle.
And the screen has a matte finish which is only going to reduce contrast.
You made a generalization about foldables. I don't have an iPhone I have a pixel. The screen is a normal phone screen on the outside. The weight doesn't bother me, it's smaller than my last phone and very slightly thicker which is still very thin, the crease is completely non issue and it's much worse on my phone than the iPhone. Battery is better than my last phone.
theyre actually quite nice, and the added redudancy that you still have a perfectly working phone when one of the screens breaks is great.
the phone-ness is exactly the same, but i dont think anyone actually needs a full tablet, but an unfolded screen is just right for say, reading a diff on the bus.
I was much more impressed by the phone->tablet fold than i was expecting to be.
Not right now, but I could see eventually. Apple prices are always a bit higher then regular and this is their flagship, the next versions will reduce this original price.
Not for everything. There’ll be a more economic version down the road. Foldable phones are a new tech even Samsung is close to 2k so everyone’s testing with high costs.
In my house, even the iPad hasn't been touched in weeks. I frankly don't see how tablets even have all that much appeal beyond little kids or maybe retail spaces. Don't really understand the utility of a convertible device.
