Models don't have "judgement" nor do they have any concept of "harm" because they have no "values". All this is, yet again, is anthropomorphization of AI, it comes as no surprise that OpenAI would claim this.

I hear this a lot, and think this complaint is from taking things way too literal. The vast majority of people would agree that s/w doesn't have a true understanding of what they're doing, s/w is just code and algorithms that do things they're programmed to do.

Saying things like the model has "judgement", or s/w "wants" to do something, or the machine "thinks" something is happening isn't a declaration of innate understanding, it's just a convenient way of describing a situation relative to concepts that people are familiar with.

Sex/race is irrelevant.

Are you sure about that?

https://www.prisonpolicy.org/b...

Meanwhile as shown in the reference URL there are hundreds of genes that have had no papers published on them. Like zero, no publications .. given the resources available at this company we will let you investigate what those genes do and possibly find out something cool, but, you have to do it on your own time."

Guess how many interns have bothered to do that in the past decade? Zero.

I can think of a couple reasons nobody's taken your company up on that.

- they're interns (ie- short term). I worked tech full-time (and did some good stuff there), but the ramp-up on the company's project and in-house processes took serious time - it was a full year before I could find my butt with both hands, so to speak

- and this research would be on their own time but with company resources. Meaning, discoveries would be owned by the company, and (depending on the company) the intern might not even get credit, or even paid for time spent finding them

Where the curves cross is the highest profit the seller can get away with. This is precisely how the curves are defined.

I'm going full off-topic pedant here, but that's not right. If the demand curve is very flat (almost horizontal), then a large increase in price will create almost no drop in demand, which gives a huge gross-margin boost. Extreme example of this is Pharma Bro / Martin Shkreli bumping the price of Daraprim by like 50x, because people would pay anything to stay alive (which Shkreli brazenly bragged about).

The crossing of the two curves indicates the point of maximum product/units that could be sold, not maximum profit.

In the near future we will probably see a headline that is something like "Elon loses $200 billion". Elon will in fact suffer no such loss. There is no loss or gain until a stock is sold. A valuation based on today's closing price is a fiction.

By that logic, if CA took $200 billion worth of shares from Elon, he wouldn't actually suffer a loss?

I thought the holy grail of AI in programming was to quickly write good code. So instead of finding "23,000 potential vulnerabilities", let's see Claude Mythos fix a substantial number of those 23,000 vulnerabilities, without introducing new vulnerabilities in the process.

They talk a big game, now it's time for trial by fire.

I'm positive that Saturday Night Live did a sketch about pretty much this idea. I never forgot it because of the visual punchline. There's a weightlifter who's on a 'cocktail' of steroids, pain-killers and a host of other extremely suspect substances, as the commentator describes, and the person in a big 'muscle suit' with sweats, etc. (like the Hans and Franz of other sketches) starts to lift the unbelievable amount of weight and...

It's the all-drug olympics:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

In 2023, Meta had a mandatory return-to-office mandate. Now Zuck gets an AI clone to handle his own "interactions" activity.

Do you suppose rank-and-file employees can start working remotely again, maybe with AI clones to maintain sufficient "live" interaction? I mean, if it's good enough for the CEO...

We have had digital price labels in some supermarkets here in Australia for a while now and we do not have dynamic pricing or other issues. To be fair we have strong consumer laws and a regulator with teeth enforcing the laws.

That's good and all, but does Australia have the right number of people actively look to enforce those laws?

"Bigger punishment if caught" is way different (and much less effective) than "bigger chance of getting caught".

So why is it such a problem in grocery stores?

Grocery stores are unusual in that you routinely buy a large variety of various small-ish items. People don't often do that at clothing stores, home-decor stores, etc.

It's hard enough to do comparison shopping on groceries as it is (who wants to track the price of 50 individual products?), but now the prices might not even stay mostly the same from day-to-day, or even morning-to-afternoon.

Counter-Strike 2, Dota 2, and Team Fortress 2 are "carefully engineered to extract money from consumers, including children

How much money do children have? Don't you think that a purported evil gambling company (Valve?) would know that children don't have much money at all, let alone access to their own credit cards with which to purchase in-game currency? ... What's that? Some children have stolen their parents' credit cards and used them online?

Whether it's gambling or not doesn't depend on who actually owns the money being put up.

Wow... has that ONLY happened with Valve loot boxes or has it happened with Amazon purchases

Buying stuff from Amazon isn't gambling. Unless you count the non-zero chance of getting a cheap Chinese knock-off of what you actually ordered.

A "Big Battery Boom"? That's kind of ambiguous, made me wonder if there was a massive lithium-battery explosion or something.

The oceans have also been 3-5m higher than they are now. I agree we shouldn't make things worse than needed, but let's not forget that the climate changes on its own up and down over time.

Rate of change matters. Just because I can use the brakes in my car to reduce speed slowly doesn't mean stopping by hitting a brick wall at full speed is at all safe.

Ecosystems need time to adjust to new temperatures, so they don't collapse.

Player are taken off the field and giving medical checks for suspected concussion, tackles that were standard are now banned,

The NFL's we'll just ignore it

The NFL has mandatory injury checks (including for concussion) and banned dangerous types of tackles also.

There are lots of games that use an oval ball and don't wear helmets. All of those have made major moves over the last decades to reduce the likelihood of concussions by making certain moves illegal in the game, with significant penalties. Spear tackles, grabbing around the neck, dumping people head first, slamming the back of the head into the turf, etc.

So why doesn't American football do the same?

What exactly are you talking about? All those things ("Spear tackles, grabbing around the neck, dumping people head first, slamming the back of the head into the turf") are already illegal in American football, and result in on-field penalties plus financial penalties (fines or suspension) for the offending player.