> Why did we consent to live in a system where the worth of our bodies and lives were so negligible as to be exchangeable for dollars?
> polling showed that a third of Americans who had faced claim denials said they viewed Mangione positively. Some saw this reaction as sociopathic, but its extremity was the very point. How far must someone go in order to be taken seriously by those who adjudicate access to life itself?
> there is no justification, ever, for denying a sick person care
Everyone above is justified in their outrage, but they have picked the wrong target.
For-profit companies exist for the purpose of making profits. They will never offer services that produce sustained losses. It's weird to blame the CEO for this - he's just doing what the shareholders hired him to do. Blaming the CEO for denying you healthcare is a bit like blaming a real estate agent for not giving away an empty house to a homeless man.
You're better off blaming the shareholders for being selfish... but that too is a bit like blaming every single person you meet who chooses to buy an iPhone instead of putting that money into a GoFundMe for a sick patient.
The real blame lies with the government. It is the government's job to give everyone a baseline level of healthcare. Taxes exist for the express reason of overcoming collective-action problems like the above. And yet, our government refuses to provide better healthcare, because a large fraction of voters prefer lower taxes over better healthcare access. if you're looking for someone to blame, blame them
They can, however, be regulated. At it's core an insurance company should just be a risk pool that gives premiums for that risk, and covers its cost + profit on getting to hold your premium for the period.
IMO what's really missing in America is a collectively incentivized set of activities to deeply reduce risk, for example one of two should be true -- smokers pay way way higher premiums, or perhaps baking in incentives by taxing cigarettes heavily like they do in Canada, for example. I see so many opportunities for healthcare to be much much cheaper just unused -- Smoking, Alcohol, THC products, risky driving, lack of exercise, high body fat, Standard American Diet (SAD) all could save a lot. Just a WAG but probably on the order of many billions in the USA.
I think one thing that makes it a mess is that healthcare comes from your employer, and your employer isnt going to diagnose each employee's lifestyle factors and pass on the risk pool savings of good choices. If the individual paid and could somehow capture that incentive profit then they'd at least have the financial incentive to be healthy.
Edit: An example I see frequently of shirking the risk/incentives structure is how Auto insurance seems to have shifted from investigating to just 50/50 outcomes unless you have a dash cam to prove your innocence. Those with risky patterns are not paying their share of insurance premiums. So until everyone dashcams it's now under penalized to do risky behavior.
> When was the last time you downloaded a model and it suddenly decided to book you a hotel room? AI doesn't do anything until you ask it to... The blame is always on who's using the tool. We should not seek to flee from our responsibility.
When was the last time you hired an Uber driver and they suddenly decided to drive you to a hotel? Uber drivers don't do anything until you ask them to. Therefore, they aren't autonomous. If your Uber driver decides to drive through a red light and kill someone in the process, the blame is on you for hiring them. You should not seek to flee from your responsibility
Let's take this to court then. The Uber driver that killed someone can be sentenced to prison. A regular person who convinced another person to commit suicide will also be legally liable. Has the last LLM induced suicide be taken to trial yet?
And if we can't take the LLMs to court for technical reasons, they should not be equated to people for the same technical reasons.
> ...the festival I helped invent 36 years ago. Curiously, I get this interest even though I haven’t set foot in the Black Rock Desert since 1996.
Not doubting the headline conclusion, but I would have expected a better source than someone who hasn't been to Burning Man in literally 30 years. AFAICT, Burning Man was still very well regarded ~20 years ago, long after this founder stopped attending
He also neglected to mention that Larry Harvey attended up through his death, afaik. Or how deeply affected the city was the year Larry died.
Or that the man design was done for so long by a close collaborator of Larry’s. And that the man base has been frequently spectacular both on fire and not.
The historical perspective and old photos are great but I’m not much for the conclusion. I would be willing to bet the title and byline are editorialized by the publisher.
You can still go out there with not much, be new and participate and just smile at some famous or not person also on their way back from the Portos.
There is a lot of money involved, no doubt and there is a lot of bullshit too, like art cars that do fundraisers and take volunteer contributions only to remain largely private vessels for a particular crew, a few celebs etc.
And there’s a lot to not like about the org or how art grants are handled, it’s a big system it has the exploits and nepotism that might infect anything scaled and offering power.
But if you go and do not look closely and just give in small ways none of that would likely be visible to you.
You could have the time of your life. Or not. Which I think suggests the opportunity for adventure and chaos still remains at that thing in the desert.
it’s still the city. the org might be run in a lame way but any time you get too involved in something you see another layer of politics and favoritism and helping friends out that just seems wrong. most people going aren’t at that level and it’s fine. you’ll still have a good time (if you want to)
I think the point GP was making was that the co-founder was basing their judgment secondhand from stories from friends and headlines.
Another bit I found peculiar was the mentions of anarchism while seeming to have a rigid idea of what the event should or should not be. It's certainly far less anarchistic today—placements, permits, law enforcement—but it's not exactly anarchism to say it isn't allowed to evolve to fit the scale and culture of the participants.
Every anarchistic community ends up with rules to ensure things run smoothly. I think anarchism should be viewed as the movement towards less rules, not a movement that allows absolutely no rules. Allocating office desks so that everyone knows where their desk is is just common sense - if you're concerned about people envying the best desks, randomise it every week. You have to mark out roads if you want there to be roads.
Law enforcement was probably there because law enforcement said they'd ban the whole event if law enforcement wasn't there. That's how they typically work.
anarchism is no rulers, not no rules. "it always ends up..." please, i would love to hear all these examples you have. burning man isn't anarchism, btw. anarchism rejects all hierarchies, is typically horizontally organized, often ran by consensus though decision making varies by flavor, is inherently anticapitalist. there would be no profit and remuneration would be even across the board. you can see how burning man could never be called anarchist. but some examples for your consideration, ezln doesn't claim it but the way they organize themselves it's largely the same, rojava, cnt-fai/revolutionary spain.
everyone always insinuates the extreme, see currently the right and left trying to burn down the scary socialists.
Does america need more socialism to to help break the back of this oligarchic fascist state fuck yes. Do I want to live in pure socialism, no, no I do not. I will however hold positions further left than I think we are able to achieve simply to help move the overton window back to some fucking sanity.
We stake out these purely moral positions at the extreme poles because we want to move the concept of where the center actually is, we know we cannot achieve some kind of communist/socialist utopia, but you don't win by negotiating with yourself before you are at the table with the adversary.
Can't this also be used to justify things that are obviously nonsensical. Like for example: "I possess an immense undetectable sphere. How can I prove this? Well, any proof I offer you would by definition violate the undetectability of the sphere. So there's no way for me to prove it, I guess you'll just have to trust me bro."
I love philosophy Calvinball, so I would counter by asserting that undetectable implies no possession, an immediate contradiction. Or go further and assert that undetectable implies nonexistence. We all possess an immense undetectable nonexistent sphere. No bounds on assumptions means I can make up anything to annoy the interlocutor.
So, you're right. This shows why we should use formal math, so we can agree on the result yet bicker about the interpretation. Some folks point to Cantor's diagonalization theorem to show that some unnameable things exist, when the theorem doesn't say that at all.
Funny how you're echoing exactly what the author said in the article
> This is not precisely 2008. GPUs are not houses; take-or-pay contracts are not mortgage-backed securities; OpenAI is not a subprime borrower in Stockton, and artificial intelligence may well be the most consequential technology of the century, which is more than anyone could ever say for a McMansion in the Inland Empire.
> The bear case in this piece is not that artificial intelligence will fail, or that the demand is fake, or that the technology disappoints. It is narrower: that the financing structure can break before the demand arrives, because the obligations are fixed and front-loaded in commencement while the revenue is variable and back-loaded in adoption - and a fixed obligation meeting a lagging revenue stream is a solvency problem regardless of how transformative the underlying technology turns out to be.
> The industry will spend the next eighteen months debating whether artificial intelligence is a bubble, which is the wrong question, asked at the wrong layer. The technology is real; so were the houses. The question is narrower: what happens when instruments underwritten at the teaser meet their reset schedule, and who is holding the paper when the obligations cannot be met as written
Ie, if you spent $10M buying a house, it doesn't matter if it will be worth $100M in the future. If you're unable to make your mortgage payments in the interim, you're going to lose everything
> Gofmt was written to reduce the number of pointless discussions about code formatting. It succeeded admirably. I'm sad to say it had no effect whatsoever on the number of pointless discussions about syntax highlighting, or as I prefer to call it, spitzensparken blinkelichtzen.
> When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.
I sincerely hope Rob Pike was being sarcastic/ironic, because otherwise, he sounds insufferable
He sounds insufferable because he's calling syntax highlighting childish. Not simply politely saying it's not his thing. It's like he can't understand why anyone else would use it, or isn't bothering to. Maybe there's more nuance to what he said, but it's not obvious from the quote.
"Everyone who uses syntax highlighting is a child"
I mean, maybe he was genuinely trying to make a joke, but I'm well past the point of assuming random strangers are joking when they're being offensively dumb.
"The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter. ’tis the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning." - Mark Twain
"Just flip a coin to pick a random synonym. Who cares?" - AI Labs
> But I really would have liked for them to state explicitly that entirely false positives where a piece is fully human-written may still be marked as generated
Are you talking about pieces that were fully human-written with zero AI editing/rewriting etc? If so, what makes you think that false positives will happen there? They aren't looking for "writing styles" or emdashes etc. They are using watermarks and metadata.
If you're talking about people using AI to copy-edit text they manually wrote, this was explicitly called out in the article:
> A detected mark provides a signal that content was processed by Claude, but is not fully conclusive. Detecting a Claude mark tells you that the content may have been processed by Claude. It does not, on its own, confirm the full provenance of the content. For example: Claude may not be the original author. People often use Claude to proofread, translate, summarize, or convert files. The output can carry a Claude mark even if the underlying ideas, text, or data originated from another source; The content may have changed after Claude processed it. Marked content may be modified, excerpted, or combined with other material after Claude processed it.
The former. I'm not sure what you mean by metadata, but my expectation was that anything that Claude could put into the plaintext to identify itself may plausibly also accidentally be produced by [a million monkeys on typewriters/one in a million human writers], since in the end, the writing is using the same language and symbols that humans use. How unique could the LLM possibly make it while still retaining its usefulness?
> How unique could the LLM possibly make it while still retaining its usefulness?
They could be doing invisible and vaguely-harmless Unicode stuff. Insertion of zero-width joiners and non-joiners, replacement of regular spaces with non-breaking spaces, building spaces from multiple hairline spaces, intentional use of non-NFC-normalized codepoint sequences for accented characters, etc.
Text with all this junk in it still reads the same; it just might wrap a little strangely, or not byte-match / collate correctly in a database (and Anthropic has never made a guarantee that their models would be capable of emitting text with these properties, so that’s fine.)
And, importantly, no regular text or document editor would insert these things (especially in the useless places you could insert them for watermarking.) You only really see them in text that’s been explicitly typeset for a specific layout (e.g. in text-containing SVGs, website mastheads, or game HUDs) or for print publication.
Of course, if this is the technique they end up using, then it’s very simple to strip it out by canonicalizing the text (i.e. Unicode-normalizing it + stripping out invisible layout characters + replacing “weird spaces” with regular ones, etc. Essentially the same thing many sites already do to user-generated content to prevent users from using Unicode features to break the page’s layout.
Never attribute to stupidity what can be attributed to self-interest. It sure looks stupid when you look at America or the Roman Empire as a whole. But when you look at the specific individuals doing these "stupid" things, and the individuals enabling them, it is perfectly aligned with their own best interests.
It’s going to be very hard to turn around over 60 years of behavior, particularly the part of interfering and spending money like a drunken sailor on special interests oil and military, the complex is coming to an end and the piggy bank is running out of money. Without useful internal infrastructure building within the country and I don’t mean data-centers, a restructure, a rethink, the decline will just accelerate.
> Never attribute to stupidity what can be attributed to self-interest.
Interesting. Sounds like a counter-point to Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity".
I use Hanlon's quite a bit to explain nonsense I see day to day, but this is a better one in some ways. It shift the conclusion of "but if only they were shown the right way" to "they know what they are doing and are looking out for number 1".
My comment was indeed inspired by Hanlon's razor. And I generally do agree with Hanlon's razor. I just think there's a distinction between malice and selfishness.
- Someone harming you because they expressly desire to harm you? Unlikely
- Someone harming you because they are stupid and don't realize what they are doing? Maybe.
- Someone harming you as a side-effect of pursuing their own selfish interests? Most likely.
The current administration has taken the edge off Hanlon's razor. Now I prefer saying "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice."
Interesting. I had not considered how scale affects these mental model.
Now I wonder if depending on the scale, one model is better suited. Or maybe they both can be modified based on the scale.
Maybe self-interest is easier to reason about than the interests of a group. Conflicting self-interests can lead to compromises that result in what looks stupid in the end.
> Never attribute to stupidity what can be attributed to self-interest.
Sure, but in cases like the new Navy battleships... it's just plain dumb, no two ways about it. Aside from the new ship class name, I see no way that it could be attributed to self-interest.
Wait, it is all about the name and that it's big, isn't it. That is self-interest I suppose, but it's just vanity, which is the stupid form of self-interest.
If an empire is subject to the whim of individuals acting in their own self interest, which causes damage and destruction to the empire, I think this is the definition of dying? It has no recourse against the looters so it gets looted to death.
Ultimately the strings are being pulled by someone who stands to gain, but it's not like Trump, Hegseth, Rubio, &co are playing 5D chess here. There are a lot of stupid blundering narcissists running things right now. The actual string-pullers know that, and as long as the stupid blundering narcissism doesn't get in the way of the string-pulling then it doesn't matter to the string-pullers, because stupid blundering narcissists are ultimately the right people for the job (easily manipulated themselves, and effective manipulators of the public). But that doesn't make them or their decisions or their statements less stupid.
Not to mention this all rides on the stupidity and emotional fragility of literally tens or hundreds of millions of voters; anything less and the project would never be possible. That's one reason debilitating the education system at all levels has become a top priority of the current administration (the other being suppression of the free thinking and often liberal or left-wing politics that historically exist at universities).
It’s the lack of coherent leadership at the top, the lawyers, junk bond, equity bankers, oil-men, and the military have had their chance, it’s time for the engineers, science, medical, builders, local bankers and internal infrastructure people to run things. And when I say run things I mean, stop accepting their word as the truth.
You're not going to build a long-term stable system that doesn't limit wealth accumulation, because it doesn't take long until all the power is back with everyone you mentioned.
Does our evolutionary fitness function count as self-interest? Climate change is on a runaway trajectory. We're in line for Darwin's top honour, but no one will be around to receive the award.
> I don't think you can just look at the statistics though. What I mean is that, the main issue is that the category of mistakes they make are going to be inherently different from the category of mistakes that humans make
Would you rather have a X% chance of a loved one dying from a human-category mistake? Or a 0.5X% chance of a loved one dying from a ML-category mistake? I would take the latter in a heartbeat. Why waste time optimizing for "categories" when you can optimize for your loved ones not dying
That is not the way human beings typically evaluate risks. 'Acceptable risks' are more about psychology and not a statistical calculation. A self driving car that is twice as safe as the human average would be considered an unacceptable risk.
Add something that is new/unknown + lack of control, and you will have to clear a very high threshold to be considered 'acceptably safe'. My guess is a minimum of a 0.1x.
I don't think that human beings factor the rate of injury or death in at all, because human beings are notoriously bad with expected values from extreme conditions.
Once people get used to taking robotaxis, they won't care. The bar is "safe enough for very few people to have a bad experience." If you take 10 robotaxi rides in a row and they all go flawlessly your subjective interpretation of the risk will be that there isn't any.
I feel confident saying this because if you die in the US to anything other than old age, it was almost certainly a car crash. Despite this, most people don't think twice before getting in a car.
"Trust" isn't just about "% of a chance I die". It's like "can this system actually function well in the environment I'm in". For instance, I live in the midwest. Our roads are AWFUL compared to most coastal areas, the weather can get really extreme (-20 in the winters), there are things like invisible black ice which is a huge hazard, people drive giant brodozers, etc. If I'm in a taxi or an uber or something, I trust that the driver can adapt to these conditions. I do not trust that a Waymo can. I'm not saying that's a "never" thing, but it is a big deal.
> polling showed that a third of Americans who had faced claim denials said they viewed Mangione positively. Some saw this reaction as sociopathic, but its extremity was the very point. How far must someone go in order to be taken seriously by those who adjudicate access to life itself?
> there is no justification, ever, for denying a sick person care
Everyone above is justified in their outrage, but they have picked the wrong target.
For-profit companies exist for the purpose of making profits. They will never offer services that produce sustained losses. It's weird to blame the CEO for this - he's just doing what the shareholders hired him to do. Blaming the CEO for denying you healthcare is a bit like blaming a real estate agent for not giving away an empty house to a homeless man.
You're better off blaming the shareholders for being selfish... but that too is a bit like blaming every single person you meet who chooses to buy an iPhone instead of putting that money into a GoFundMe for a sick patient.
The real blame lies with the government. It is the government's job to give everyone a baseline level of healthcare. Taxes exist for the express reason of overcoming collective-action problems like the above. And yet, our government refuses to provide better healthcare, because a large fraction of voters prefer lower taxes over better healthcare access. if you're looking for someone to blame, blame them