I am not, hence the (apparently bad) attempt to present that as a quote.
As far as I can tell, we have the technical resources to create a thriving environment for the vast majority of people (and life in general), but have failed to due so because our social systems are predicated on greed. I had the impression that we might agree on that in principle - did I get that wrong?
In a perfect world, 100% of all workers would have a quality job -- one that allows them to not just survive, but thrive, prosper, and be happy. Of course, we don't live in a perfect world, and probably never will, but at least let us strive towards that end.
"No." ~ Effectively "all" investors, business lobbyists, the entire C-suite, and companies promoting or using AI
That aside, I'd hope that a software engineer would be more precise when using computer-related terms.
It does look like you're put-off by his choice of words, and maybe you disagree with my thought that it could be worth forgiving that detail in order to solve the problem he wants to solve.
Based on the context clues, the author may have used the word leaked exactly as you expected, and then used the word allocated as a synonym for "written," and used as a synonym for "written and later read." If I were speaking to the author and uncertain about this, I'd probably ask for clarification directly. People rarely use the exact dictionary definition for every single word they write, and I usually find it more useful to understand what someone intended than what words they should have used.
Your signature says "If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it." How does that compare with what's happening in your comment?
Argumentative, insulting, with an edge of "dafuq," but basically accurate and ready to laugh it off and maybe get a beer.
Yup. Sounds like Philly.
Philosophically: The tech billionaires, AI investors, and the folks arguing "biological consciousness is of no greater worth than the future digital variety" have effectively adopted nihilism and rejected humanism. If I recall my old humanities classes correctly, both of these are fundamentally rationalist - to my knowledge, the only way to make a logical argument for the value of human existence is to found it on the subjective experience of wanting to exist.
Humanism (which is, IIRC, approximately the foundation for modern western civilization), embraces the required component of subjectivity and suggests we enjoy the ride and, you know, maybe not go around killing each other and destroying ourselves because:
In the current context it looks to me like the relationship between humanism and nihilism on a spectrum of existentialism is becoming literal again. We either decide that we want to exist, and we're willing to do what is rationally necessary to support each other in existing, or we're out.
... and, yeah, that "biological consciousness is of no greater worth than the future digital variety" argument, is a literal declaration that the folks making this decision are perfectly happy to end your existence in pursuit of their nihilistic fantasies.
I assume he means "remain competitive" in terms of ROI for billionaires. Which might be true despite the productivity loss and burnout if you assume individual workers are a disposable resource.
On the other hand, mathematically, if you are someone who actually produces anything, your best bet at achieving for a better life in the current environment would be for us to fully defund the Epstein class.
One of the officials said Anthropic’s position amounts to making a moral judgment about how law enforcement agencies do their jobs.
That quote was probably included to get the exact reaction I'm going to give, and I'm good with it. Set aside anything else Anthropic might do later.
Moral judgement is what we're supposed to do. When the friggin' AI companies think you've taken the quest for power and surveillance too far, you're in a very bad place.
50% think DST should become the permanent time, while the other 50% think it should be non-DST. That's the real problem.
Personally, I'd rather have the extra hour of daylight in the evening.
Are you attached to the local numbering on a 12 hour clock? Do people find the current situation preferable to (as an example) standardizing on UTC+0 globally, and then working through whatever semantic and work-shift accommodations are needed to keep things working at a local level?
Maybe I'm doing something dumb here, so spot check me, but in terms of daily intake: "at 86 degrees, it's more than 15 grams. Beyond that, appetites lessen and added sugar falls off, according to the study in Monday's Nature Climate Change."
If there are 40 grams of sugar in a normal soda, then sounds like they're saying that when it's above 86 degrees, the typical American might buy a soda approximately once every 2.7 days. So that 100 million lbs / year is just big because there are nearly 350 million people here. Obviously soda isn't the best drink, but it sounds like the whole thing could just as easily say "when it's hot out, people will occasionally buy something at a vending machine."
Simultaneously making it harder to be well informed, but easier to believe one is well informed.
-- "Who controls the present now? Now testify!" ~ Jane Austin
sure, but the real problem is the police are a ready tool of murder.
So is a hammer. Ban hammers?
OP is suggesting that the police ought to be smarter than a bag of hammers.
If we actually wanted to get money out of politics, and maybe do something about getting a government by the people instead of a few oligarchs, we'd have to quit falling for the trap. As soon as the conversation starts revolving around whether "the left" or "the right" is to blame, and worrying about hobbling "our side" while the "other side" keeps getting ahead - we're back in the trap: fighting against ourselves while the Epstein class pulls all the strings.
Almost nobody is going to unilaterally disarm while their "other side" is threatening them. Unfortunately can't all just count down from three and agree to forego PACs at the same time, but we could make some incremental steps.
First:
Influencers must attend advocacy trainings and messaging check-ins while Chorus retains approval rights over political content made with program resources.
See that "approval rights over political content" thing? Take it as a given that if someone is claiming to represent "the left" but not actively working to get rid of oligarchs and big money in politics, they aren't accurately representing the biggest concerns of "the left." It doesn't depend on whether they get paid to make political ads - but it does depend on whether they oppose oligarchy and political bribes.
Second - adjust the "our side won't give it up because your side is worse" thing with "ready when you are" approach, similar to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact approach. (I'm not arguing that you should / should not support that compact, just using it as a example for how to deal with this kind of situation.)
Anyway.. this sucks.
Logic is a pretty flower that smells bad.
