Your own AI system is number 1 at neonazi propaganda and revenge porn. When you put on an act that you care about societal ills, absolutely *nobody* buys it. It's not a good look. You're not convincing anyone.

Buddy, I respect your accomplishments. You deserve your spot as the world's richest man. And, overall, I understand that you're trying to sincerely push humanity forward, since that goal lines up well with your empire-building. But, don't try and act like a caring leader. It's not a good look on you. You're no better than Zuckerberg at the empathy thing. When you try to make an "I care" face, I can literally see your face muscles spasming.

Wait. That was two different peoples testimony. Got my facts somewhat wrong. My analysis still stands up though imo.

Sounds like her testimony is self contradictory.

She says Altman struggles with controversial decisions, making him a bad leader.

But she also says that he rolled out chargpt without board input, making him a bad leader because he *sigh* made a controversial decision

The witness also happens to be the mother of 4 of Musks children. So, this reads more like a reality show script than a serious trial. Im sure the judge is constantly reminding himself to not roll his eyes in front of the audience.

This is made-for-media drama.

fighting for money, power and control, using whatever lever or crowbar they can manage to get their hands on. The judge knows it, along with anyone that's paid the least bit of attention and has the intelligence of an average 11 year old.

The idea that Musk wanted control over OpenAI so he can "further his goal of a city on Mars" is laughable. The dude is completely distracted. Grok, X and DOGE are complete distractions.

"ooooh a different shiny squirrel".

I'm absolutely rooting for SpaceX to succeed. I would be really happy if Musk actually succeeds at his original goal of a permanent human population on Mars. But I'm pretty sure he's become entirely distracted or has consciously given up on it. Either way, someone else will have to get that particular football across the finish line. Probably in 50-100 years.

It might be that getting "Trumped" has caused Anthropic to turn away from government work and look for other business. Becoming the go-to AI company for Wall Street would hardly be a consolation prize. It's probably an even bigger market than defense.

Musk tried playing the fragile, wronged champion-of-humanity, trying to tell a story about how the Evil Sam Altman snookered him into thinking that OpenAI would always be nonprofit and put humanity first. He practically gave the testimony with tears streaming down his face.

He does NOT pull off that look very well.

It's hard to take him seriously about the harms of AI when Grok is the #1 LLM for Nazi propaganda and fabricating revenge porn. I know people who use Grok for real work. But it doesn't exactly prioritize human well-being

Ok, so your point is absolutely valid and I failed to make the distinction. I was talking about immigration control, not reproduction control.

If a country is actually getting full, limiting immigration is a valid thing to debate. (however, most countries aren't full)

Reproduction control is monstrous. No need to point to sci-fi. Various real governments have tried to control reproduction. Every one of those stories ended with the line "... and it went horribly wrong and unspeakable things were done to innocent people".

Switzerland is already a fairly dense country. They're small, landlocked, resource limited and they've got around 225 people per square km. Which is getting up there. How much more crowded should they allow themselves to get? It's a legit question that shouldn't get clouded by the standard nativist right wing talking points. Maybe "as many people as the world can cram in" isn't the right answer.

It's totally different in a place like the US. We have more land than we could reasonably populate and plenty of natural resources. We could absorb enormous numbers of people and we would be better off for it.

I agree that there must be limits to what the gubbermint can do to me, and how it monitors me. I'm not saying that they get free game on everything.

But, let's take your shovel analogy. When I buy the shovel, my cell phone transmits that data to at least a dozen places, which then sell that info to a hundred other places, which inundate me with ads for other garden tools for the next 5 years. I see this play out on my cell phone constantly.

So, it's not just one or two companies that know about my shovel purchase. It's literally every company on the planet that has an interest in me and is willing to spend the 0.000001$ required to buy my info. If the info is that widely available, I would argue that it's not "unreasonable" for the government to have access as well.

I also understand that this idea could be extended to the point of absurdity, and that there's a legit societal debate to be had about privacy versus security versus freedom.

However, this guy's court case is basically "the government isn't allowed to know I was driving on a public road because my iphone is sacrosanct like my immortal soul". Sorry, that simply doesn't pass the sniff test.

IANAL either, but I think that the type of "search" is pretty important here.

To expand on your analogy. Let's say that the police want to physically search and question every single person who attended a museum the week of a theft. They haul each person in for a full 36 hours of interrogation, tied to a chair, complete with waterboarding, and a nurse in goggles and leather apron, pulling on a thick latex glove with a *snap" as they let it go. That's pretty obviously unreasonably broad search and seizure.

Cell phone records don't feel the same to me. This is gonna get me downmodded instantly, but, to me, cell phone records just don't seem like "special information". I signed up for the cell phone plan. I voluntarily carried my phone that day in a public place. I could have turned it off and put it in an aluminum pouch, but I didn't. I walked around broadcasting data across a full gigahertz of spectrum to every cell tower within range. The data gets collected by at least a dozen data aggregators, who go on to sell it to hundreds of other companies. Which means that my cell phone records are probably for sale to literally anyone on the planet who goes to the effort of calling up a data aggregator and writing a check.

But, for some reason, the police can't get the same data because it's "unreasonable"? To me, that just doesn't pass the sniff test. When I walk out my front door with a modern smartphone in my pocket, I'm basically screaming my data to the rest of the world.

This sounds like that South Park bit "Meghan and Harry World Privacy Tour".

Downmod in 3,2,1

“Siri and other AI features”.

Siri is ddduuummmbbbbbbb.

I’m pretty pro-Apple. Their ecosystem is awesome. Most of my devices are Apple. But Siri is clearly just a placeholder for some future development that makes voice assistants more useful.

Yeah, I'm not sure how to feel about this gray-zone stuff. I like consistency and rules are generally meant to be followed.

But, ride-sharing is one of those sketchy rule-breaking situations that led to something that was really needed - a shakeup in the taxi industry, which had been so locked down by laws and regulations that innovation was completely strangled. It's pretty clear that Uber's rule/tradition/law-breaking ultimately made the "hiring a driver" thing much better for nearly everyone.

I'm not sure that the same thing will happen with these online betting markets. I have a hard time seeing how more gambling will make the world a better place.

jiggity

I'm perfectly fine with private equity. There are a lot of people with massive amounts of money to burn, and they don't want to put it into standard equities for a variety of reasons. If they want to massively overpay for a small shot at owning a piece of the next Apple, that's their business.

My feelings are different when it comes to the IPOs. All the current SV-crypto-AI bros want to tap the public equities market, but they're asking for all sorts of special velvet-glove treatment. No. No. No. Absolutely not. Public listing means transparency. It means answerability to shareholders. It means that the owner can't destroy their company on a whim. It means that the public has a say in how the company is run. Our society has already bent over backwards by allowing "special shares". We shouldn't give them any more perks. You want public investor cash? Sure, but you bite the bullet and f&ckin behave like every other publicly listed company. Otherwise, go ahead and stay private, where the company is your toy and you can break it if you feel like it.

One or the other.

and, yet, somehow, Claude continues to be used all over the federal government. So much for "formal declarations". And, no matter who says what on social medial, the legality of the situation is determined by the courts. Nobody else. No matter how orange their skin is or how square their jawline is.

And, if the gubbermint is still using Claude, Anthropic is definitely still continuing to get paid in some way or another. So, I kinda doubt it's hurt their business much.

Again, watch the reality, not the reality show.