Problem is, doing Y only "causes" cancer after doing it nonstop for like 40 years.
What can you do today that would cause cancer tomorrow or next week? Even next year? Nothing. Yet, just about every environmental thing causes cancer over long periods of time.
Which leads to the absurd: being alive causes cancer.
Sounds like a fair characterization then? Trying to dictate or restrict the (domestic) military uses of a product is literally an adversarial position to the national military interest.
Where did you get "trying to dictate" from? The text is "the risk that an adversary may sabotage, maliciously introduce unwanted function, or otherwise subvert [...]"
A mutually agreed upon "you may not use our product for X or Y purpose" in a contract clearly doesn't pose any such risk.
Trying to argue for and enforce a 'you may not use our product for an express objective of the US military' provision is pretty clearly "trying to dictate". Actively cancelling, moving capabilities behind a 'safety' wall, or even threatening to would be a clear sabotage of the US military's operational capabilities. It'd be one thing is Anthropic merely expressed an opinion, but my understanding is that it was/is an outright 'we will not allow' as opposed to a 'we'd prefer you didn't'.
Imagine if Microsoft tried the same with excel or power point. "um actually in the fine print of the EULA it says you may not use our product for military purposes so we will revoke your access unless you stop using power point for mission briefings that might result in the deaths of civilians". Would fly about as well as a lead brick.
Again, the statute says nothing about "dictating terms." It covers an adversary who might sabotage or subvert a system. And no, Anthropic did not cancel anything, did not pull any capabilities, and has no backdoor into deployed models. There was no "um actually." It wrote two prominent usage restrictions into a contract, the military read and signed it, and then later demanded the terms be removed.
As a sanity check, I’d highly recommend trying out your own line of reasoning in cases which you think you might feel differently about. For example, imagine it's instead a certain authoritarian state saying "obey the Party or get blacklisted as a national security threat."
It might feel good in the moment, like "yeah, Anthropic, don't tell the military what to do," because you agree with this particular call. But the government doesn't give that power back, and you might not be so happy about the next way it gets used.
The difficulty in getting to an agreement on what "responsible" means, and on how a "failure" should be handled means that said experiment will never occur. Nothing is ever safe enough and no failure is acceptable -- so no test which can fail can be run.
A situation which would be in obvious conflict (negative expected value) with the goal of saving the man hours and lives currently being cost by manual driving.
Carbon fiber and 3d printed titanium is probably where I'd start for materials to design a high end vacuum to be light/strong/durable. Injected molded magnesium alloy would also be a candidate if production qty was high enough to offset the tooling.
Well if we got enough people together it would be pretty cheap, maybe 15 or 20 bucks or so with inflation. And we could fill the movie upfront, and create some previews and launch an advertising campaign -- that'd certainly help drum up interest and get more people to crowdfund. Best even to just collect their money as right before they watch it so they know they aren't getting scammed and will in fact get to watch the movie they are crowdfunding. We can also crowdfund some popcorn machines and communal viewing rooms, after all people will want to have a snack and watch their crowdfunded movie with friends and family.
That was a lot of snark :-) I know what you're saying. It's not clear to what degree the film industry would be viable in its current form though without IP rights. If everyone can watch the latest marvel film at home for free, are they going to be willing to pay to see it in theaters?
There would likely still be some demand for the experience, but the tickets would need to be more expensive to recoup the costs of making the film. At that point: it does seem like people pooling together their funds to fund the movie itself isn't insane. The point is that the "investors" wouldn't be investing in the hopes of a financial return, they'd be paying for the creation of the film.
From a consumer POV it is -- even if only read as 'not under-engineered'.
In an over engineered thing margin is left on the table which the consumer gets to take advantage of. Noting that in the real world items are often exposed to loads and demands above and beyond the idealized design constraints a 'perfectly' engineered item would just meet.
What qualifies as good manners varies from situation to situation, but the concept of acting with good manners is hardly complicated (conform to the expected behavior of the situation).
Enforcment is a matter of encoding the rules and then applying a carrot and/or stick -- same as any other rule.
"Conform to the expected behavior of the situation" is incredibly complicated. What is the situation? How do you determine what the expected behavior is? What exactly does conforming consist of?
It takes humans years to learn how to do this. Entire books are written on the subject. A major medical disorder affecting millions of people includes a persistent difficulty doing this specific thing. Even normal people have to put serious effort into this if they visit a place where societal norms are different from what they're used to.
If it's not complicated, then I'm sure you can write down the rules for some specific situation real quick. Go ahead....
That wasn't complicated. And took 30seconds. Are there a lot of rules? Of course. Is knowing them all in advance possible? Of course not. Don't confuse that with 'complicated'.
Fine people who litter. Have an ai voice chide people who stand on the wrong side of an escalator. Both simple.
Do I really have to stand to the right on an escalator? I think the nearest one is a mile away, that seems really inconvenient and unnecessary, and it's going to be hard to get my work done.
I'm surprised to find this sentiment on a site filled with computer programmers. The most important and difficult lesson of computer programming is that simple-sounding rules have a lot of details that we take for granted.
> I think the nearest one is a mile away, that seems really inconvenient and unnecessary
I think this way of thinking, being obtuse on purpose to try to win an internet argument (without a prize, no less), is the more unnecessary thing. What point does that argumentation try to prove other than that a hypothetical version of you, as opposed to most humans who live in large cities, are an inflexible idiot?
Most people are not 100% unaware of the context in which they are engaging. We know to apply escalator rules when we're at an escalator. We know to put things in bins when we have things to put in bins. What we don't know, we can learn through observation, reading the atmosphere, and making at least a minimal effort not to showboat our individualism and, apparently, any obtuse refusal to engage with our context.
(By the way, I don't actually think you are an inflexible idiot.)
That's my point. It's a lot more complicated than "stand to the right on an escalator." You have to learn through observation, read the atmosphere, and engage with context.
There are some less obtuse issues with your universal pronouncement. There are escalators where it's too narrow to pass. There's no need nor expectation to stand to one side on these. The same goes for escalators that are so long that nobody's walking up them to accelerate their progress, or when nobody is around, or when it's so crowded nobody's able to pass anyway. And, at least in the places I'm familiar with, it doesn't apply in places where people aren't going to be in a big hurry. Stand right, pass left applies to subway stations but not malls.
Maybe this all seems obvious. Well, go to a tourist-heavy place with escalators and observe how much of this is learned behavior that takes repeated long-term exposure to understand.
Manners are really complicated. The escalator thing is a relatively simple example compared to something like, say, paying for a meal in a restaurant with a group, and it's already pretty deep when you dig into it.
It's not so complicated that you assume you need to run out at this very moment to find the nearest elevator just to prove a point. That's moronic.
> There are escalators where it's too narrow to pass
So you see what everybody else is doing and do that. Presumably, if it's that narrow, everybody's just standing in the centre.
> The same goes for escalators that are so long that nobody's walking up them to accelerate their progress
The fact the staircase is so long is exactly why people would be walking up an escalator, to save the most time.
> or when nobody is around
Then it clearly doesn't matter.
> or when it's so crowded nobody's able to pass anyway
If everybody's on one side, it's not too crowded.
> it doesn't apply in places where people aren't going to be in a big hurry
Alright, that's fine for where you are familiar. It won't take long at all to notice that's not the case in Japan, there are enough elevators all around the place.
> Manners are really complicated
If you're completely unobservant yet somehow think you need to be on edge at all times, which seems contradictory, I'm sure it is.
Or if you think that they're inflexible edicts without nuance. They're manners, not morals.
There was just an outbreak at Taco Bell - should we fine Yum! Brands out of existence. liquidate their assets and imprison the executives, like some people elsewhere in the discussion seem to be advocating for? Should we add a few billion dollars in operating costs in increased food safety regulations?
The societally optimal amount of regulation will most likely not completely eliminate outbreaks, presuming diminishing returns.
How are Tech companies fighting public transit? At least in these parts a relatively high fraction of their employees commute by (private) bus.
I can only presume that Tech companies would prefer the government provide safe, clean, and timely bussing for the public to save the company the cost and effort.
Hyperloop and Boring Company were both created as distractions from real proven transit technologies, and the latter has been quite successful at getting rail projects cancelled or at least confusing politicians enough to delay them.
No, I provided one particularly eggregious example. Uber/Lyft have also lobbied against transit. The Google shuttles OP alludes to interfered with real transit operations.
They generally would, though for the most part I imagine they're just ambivalent here. As long as workers can get to work, that's most of what they care about.
Every time a tech company lobbies against taxes, they’re fighting public transit. Every time they spend the exact same money they just argued shouldn’t go to the state on privatized busses, they’re fighting public transit.
Mechanism. Testable causality. X causes cancer by doing y.
reply