Free as in speech, not as in beer. That's not an anathema to open source.

I suspect the cutting-edge AIs will always be beyond the reach of an individual's hardware.

Morality is difficult enough for humans to define. But the best definion I have heard of what contitutes a moral act is: that which reduces harm or increases flourishing. And yes, you can create dilemmas that frustrate even this definition (choice between bus full of nuns vs. child-prodigy violinist, etc.)

I don't think it's feasible to teach morality to an AI by labeling all of its training data meticulously. Maybe some of it, but you're bound to miss things. I think it's more important to provide an AI with governing principles (i.e., "core values") and some examples to illustrate them.

I think I get what you're saying about Anthropic, that it's engaging in marketing hype, i.e., propaganda. But teaching an AI core values does not seem to me like the wrong approach.

Well, at least they published the constitution.

Considering what's at stake for the human race with AI, I can't think of a better case for open-source designs and software in all things regarding it.

I'll just leave this right here.

Lots to read on the Clinton page, but I didn't see the similarlty. Poilievre's page, on the other hand, reads as something heavily inspired by Trump's agenda.

Many people in Poilievre's own Conservative party even decided to vote for the Liberals instead.

Poilievre portrayed himself as a Trumpian figure, until he realized it was a losing proposition. You can hardly blame Carney for reminding Canadian voters what Poilievre had said.

You're just making shit up. Poilievre is a right-wing populist. The Overton Window skews more leftward in Canada than in the USA, but not so far left as to put Poilievre to the left of Clinton.

That's not Trump's style. He would expect Carney to give him a trophy. Goodness knows it has happened enough times already. See FIFA, Venezuelan opposition leader Machado, and so on.

None of your post makes any sense at all.

Trump made the mocking comments to Carney's predecessor, Justin Trudeau. At the time Trump made the comments, he had no idea Trudeau would resign, nor did he have any idea Carney would take his place.

And Trudeau resigned because he didn't think his party could win an election with him at the helm, not because Trump mocked him.

As for Polievre, he was Canadian MAGA. Trump could not have asked for a better ally in Ottawa, and he blew it by mouthing off about the "51st state." Polievre tried to soften his position during the election but it was too late: his significant lead in the polls disappered and the Liberals got re-elected.

Fine. Release the Epstein files and we'll see who is in them. If it includes information that disgraces the Clintons, then oh well, too bad for them.

Too bad for anyone in the Epstein files who is demostrated to have molested children.

Not to mention distracting us from the non-release of the overwhelming majority of the Epstein files. Anybody remember those?

Who started it? Who mocked the Canadian PM as the "governor" of Canada and called for Canada to become the "51st state?"

The USSR was a founding charter member of the UN. It was one of the five permanent members of the Security Council. It had a veto, and still does, through its continued membership as the Russian Federation.

Thanks for the improvement. I just posted my own correction below.

Correction: Trump revoked his invitation to Canadian PM Mark Carney because Carney showed insufficient "gratitude" for the support Trump feels the USA provides Canada. Trump said Canada "lives because of the United States" and Carney disagreed. Canada had not shown a willingness to participate anyway, citing concerns about the governance of the board.

FTFY.