You make it sound like a bad thing. Seriously, this argument is routinely used and it's routinely absurd. Any amount of tax is "confiscation" and acceptance of taxes is up there with the acceptance of death -- i.e. everybody accepts some amount of taxation is absolutely necessary -- in fact desired. So stop with the bullshit argument and move on straight to defining the appropriate tax rate why explain why wealthier people should pay less than the rest of us.

That's an absurd take. First, they didn't "sell" it. The F-35 software was software that as written at the government's behest. Anthropric's product was not. If the government want's to hire Lockheed to write them AI software they are free to do so. And, no POTUS cannot just use war machines in "ANY way he deems necessary".

Another banger.

"Okay, so if I'm not mistaken, this room is full of people that are industry leaders that are in charge of taking humans back to the moon. ...in your head, answer the following question, 'Have I read NASA SP 287?'. The title of the document is 'What made Apollo a success?'

Have you read it?

And if you have not read it, I'm not joking about this, shame on you. Seriously.

You have a whole generation of engineers that did the coolest thing engineering humans have ever done and they gave you the playbook. They wrote it. All you got to do is read it."

This is illuminating. 2 years ago, he takes them apart. On stage. In there face. "I just decided to go there and say the things nobody was going to say."

SmarterEveryDay - I Was SCARED To Say This To NASA... (But I said it anyway)

The whole presentation is good but you can skip to 18:33 to get to the meat.

"You're terrified to talk right now. You know the truth and you're afraid to say it.
...
We are going. Right?
...
Guys, are we going? You guys should know this. ... We're two years out and we don't know the number of rockets we need to refuel. We're going, right?

That's not why you're not getting Affordable health coverage.

They can if done poorly. I'm not convinced that we have the regulatory and governmental maturity to expand classic nuclear energy production in a way that won't produce significantly more harm than alternatives. My objections aren't about the theoretical use of the technologies themselves. The biggest problem with nuclear is human weakness and that failure mode is FAR more destructive than alternatives.

No it's not more efficient if you include all the outputs that a human produces during that same period.

OH REALLY? Shall we dump the contents of the in-process memory of that AI query and see what hallucinations and harmful ideas it's producing before it's final output?

No... but I'm sure half of us are willing to "voluntold" the other half. The only thing stopping it is identifying and coordinating who exactly those willing persons are efficiently enough. So far.

Start with CEOs and I'm on-board.

Probably not entirely. That picnic likely will result in photos that will be sucked up to use as training input to image AI.

I mean... It's in his NAME for heaven's sake -- "Alt-Man" Alternative man?

I mean... It's in his NAME for heaven's sake "Alt-Man" Alternative man?

There are no incentives here to make any issues found public. Oracle makes money allowing it to continue. They'll be as effective an auditor as Moody's, i.e. not at all.

A good question. Even if the answer was 'no' (it's not), it's Anthropic's prerogative to make moral judgments if it wishes regarding the use of its technology. It's called a "License Agreement".