Anthropic's entire pitch has always been safety. Innovation like this tends to favor a very few companies, and it leaves behind a whole pile of losers that also had to spend ridiculous amounts of capital in the hopes of catching the next wave. If you bet on the winning company you make a pile of money, if you pick one of the losers then the capital you invested evaporates. Anthropic has positioned itself as OpenAI, except with safeguards, and that could very well be the formula that wins the jackpot. Historically, litigation and government sponsorship have been instrumental in picking winners.

However, as things currently stand, Anthropic is unlikely to win on technical merits over its competition. So Dario's entire job as a CEO is basically to get the government involved. If he can create enough doubt about the people that are currently making decisions in AI circles that the government gets involved, either directly through government investment, or indirectly through legislation, then his firm has a chance at grabbing the brass ring. That's not to say that he is wrong, he might even be sincere. It is just that it isn't surprising that his pitch is that AI has the potential to be wildly dangerous and we need to think about safety. That's essentially the only path that makes his firm a viable long term player.

I don't mean "modern print" as opposed to "old print" - I mean print with modern writing instruments as opposed to the instruments of the time when cursive was invented. They didn't exactly have ball point pens back in the days of yore.

Cursive is not generally less movement in the 2d plane of the paper - it is just less movement up and down in the 3d space so that you are removing the pen from the paper less. The thing is, we can move in 2 directions at once. The tip of a pen can come off the paper as its moving to the next location with very little impact in overall speed.

The goal of cursive is to keep the tip on the page more which worked better for quills as coming off the page and back onto it would often cause an ink blot and could break the tip of a quill. Those issues are gone with ink pens. Plus have you ever looked at cursive from when they really focused on it? Like census reports from the 1800's? A lot of that stuff is basically illegible. Even the archives that have translated it will just have ????? in some spots because no one could make out what was written. While print isn't immune to

Trust me - I know how to write it. I'm old. I was forced to learn it in elementary school and had to do all assignments in cursive up through high school. Its still a dumb idea.

Hand-writing is fine. Cursive itself is pointless. Print is just as fast in modern times and is FAR more legible.

If you look at cursive writing from like an 1800's census or something, half of it is virtually impossible to read. Cursive was invented for use with QUILLS. Even if you're writing by hand now you're using a pencil or an ink pen, not a quill.

Mohammad Ali has been gone for quite some time; how much could he possibly demand?

just because people are allegedly told to use Oxford commas does not mean they are correct. I do not use them.

what if your list is two elements?

you can pretend there isn't a conflict but there is one.

Now I pay the same outrageous prices for just cable internet alone, and I pay for streaming services!

My hammer used punctuation obstinately too. And it makes a lousy grilled cheese sandwich.

Doesn't stop it from being a useful tool though ...

Except for that one time it was Lupus!

"The left looooved Musk when they thought he was one of them."

no they didn't, and you don't even know what the left is. trump defines the left for you, and musk was loved by idiot tech bros

He used to win these market timing games because no one was paying attention to huge short positions. You could quietly bet against a company, or, better yet, you could quietly amass a short position and then release stunning negative news that you had uncovered and watch the stock price tank.

These days it is more likely that online investors will notice a large short, and drive the price of the stock up until the person holding the short gets margin called and loses all of their money. The shorters then provide the liquidity you need to get out of the position. There used to be good money in shorting terrible companies, but in an age where hordes of armchair investors can drive the price of GameStop to the moon that strategy is just too risky.

In an of itself, that's a perfectly cromulant opinion to hold, but I doubt it's going to be shared by a bunch of people with Robinhood accounts paying electronically for the delivery of "freedfrom from techy surfdom". :D