The point, I think, is to make fun of Anthropic models, which answer only in text when you ask them how to do something. They’re the competition, not paper pamphlets.
In a list describing how the USA system works, sure: selective enforcement is there.
As a differentiator from the Chinese system, not so much. For two otherwise equal companies, the one that says things against the party line will experience selective enforcement too.
Except that in China, the people who do that will disappear.
The propaganda of trying to make US and China government appear the same is making people dumber. and is one of the most heavily used tools in China’s online propaganda arsenal.
>The propaganda of trying to make US and China government appear the same [...] is one of the most heavily used tools in China’s online propaganda arsenal.
The government could do some very easy things to remove this tool from China's toolbelt. Like you know, prosecuting rich people when they've earned it.
In the USA, they don’t disappear, they commit suicide in their car typically. In Russia, they fall out of windows and off of balconies. I don’t think it’s accurate to call the circumstances equivalent, or the regimes equivalent. But there are some remarkable similarities, and their goals are similarly structured - to keep those in power powerful and to enrich the wealthy.
Who was trying to make the US and China appear the same? I think you have reading comprehension problems, buddy.
If you look at the comment I responded to, they were remarking on selective enforcement in the USA. I merely observed that this isn’t a unique feature of the US system, it happens in China too. I said nothing about the severity of the consequences.
Really? It’s clickbait because it paints OpenAI as hypocritical: “look they’re marketing AI as valuable, and they won’t even let their own people use it”. When in fact the job description is to not use AI.
Please reread. I am not making the claim that OpenAI is hypocritical.
I am making the claim that the article headline is clickbait because it paints OpenAI as hypocritical for firing workers for using AI to do their job, which is a mischaracterization because the whole job is to give human input.
Don't worry, I'm not coming down hard on said person. The thread is about a GrapheneOS bulletin, whose members are well-documented contributers to AOSP.
“Recursive” is a reasonable term because the generation N AIs will train the Generation N+1 AIs. The term “iterative” doesn’t reflect this nuance as well IMO.
Recursion reduces each step toward a base case: each step is defined in terms of previous/simpler steps, not more advanced ones. The "recursive" in "recursive self improvement" has things precisely backward. Iteration correctly describes a process where each step is the starting point of its successive step, so it should be "iterative self improvement" but I guess that didn't sound as cool.
I think you're confusing a recurrence relationship with recursive execution. Until AI has control over its inputs (including physical inputs - compute hardware, etc.) it's not quite RSI. We'll get there. They'll get there, rather.
reply