> I think they are legitimately convinced that this model is so dangerous it could destroy the world and that they genuinely have the responsibility to prevent it from assisting other models to destroy the world.
Do they really believe that? Or do they just want to control this technology exclusively with moves like this and with pushing for regulatory capture after complaining about safety all the time? Didn’t Dario say that GPT2 or GPT3 would present a similar destroy the world level of danger?
As per the Wikipedia links, it's generally considered by scholars to be the origin of all alphabets and an early alphabetic script. Abjad is a term invented in 1990 to distinguish early alphabetic scripts without vowels from later scripts with them. Effectively every scholar agrees that Canaanite/Aramaic/Hebrew/Arabic are alphabetic systems (while also acknowledging them as abjads).
I use AI to generate code very rarely (basically replacing searching code from SO which was also rare) yet maybe 90-95% of my code is machine generated (macros, snippet engines, boilerplate generators, IDE/LSP features etc) if we define as how many characters in the source code out of all characters did I write by my hand.
Before collective AI psychosis nobody cared how much code is hand written and how much machine generated and the difference was absolutely massive between developers. There was also no guaranteed correlation between "productivity" and how much developer hand writes or actually uses their tools well and the same applies with AI usage.
Wow… just wow. The future looks incredibly bleak if people are throwing fisftuls of money at this company. Anthropic will
quickly become the sole arbiter of everything in your life.
Love our magpies, we’ve been interacting with the local family for several years now and they trust us pretty well.
Last year during fledging season their baby was near the side of the road, in the grass looking lost/hurt/exhausted, so some kind but misguided passers-by (it’s normal, they kick ‘em out of the nest to try and make them fly) picked it up and were going to take it to a wildlife hospital. Mum was watching them from a tree, quite distressed.
I persuaded them I’d look after it and get help if needed, and took the baby back up to the house, then sat down outside and tried to give it back. Baby was by this point clutching my hand and nestling in to me. Mum wandered up, took a look at me holding her kid and I could almost imagine her saying “Ah, yeah you look after him for a while then, I need a break” because she seemed to relax, then went back to the other adults and had a feed before coming back for him!
Claude is remarkably good at performance engineering and ports. It only takes one person on your team to ask claude to do a round of performance profiling and tuning. Or ask claude to take your react site and set up a server to render parts of your site as static, cache friendly HTML.
You barely need domain expertise any more. Just ask claude to make it go faster and it will.
The space program is not about science. It has never been about science. Science is just the excuse, the window-dressing. What it's really about is military power and sending money to the right congressional districts. Source: I worked at JPL from 1988 to 2004.
Can you help me understand which costs? Utilitarianism alone would not necessarily be so obsessed with these safeguards -- Anthropic seems to have much more of an obsession with moral good than utilitarianism alone would suggest. I feel utilitarianism alone would likely be more obsessed with advancing the technology, making it generally available, and more generally compensating for attackers advancing at similar rates, than with obsessively trying to avoid being the way they get there. In other words, utilitarianism alone wouldn't explain such the obsessive sense of responsibility over how their tools are used.
Ok. FYI that comment got auto-deleted too, I had to vouch it to undelete it. You might need to email HN moderation after you start adding your affiliation to your posts, else they'll keep getting auto-deleted immediately.
That doesn't address anything. If your computer is compromised they do not need your hardware key because they can just read the mail on your device or steal login cookies.
Passkey is still inferior to U2F + password anyways.
I dunno about that. Gemma 4 is probably the best model for general self-hosted use for almost everyone that doesn't have a data center in their basement. They didn't have to release it at all, and they didn't have to release speculative decoding drafters, and they didn't have to release the QAT version of the models that makes the 4-bit quantization perform very close to the bigger versions, and can run in 32GB. I'd love a 122B version of it, and I didn't realize they'd ever announced one was coming (though I remember there being speculation about it). But, also, I'm happy they're doing so much with it. They've got all the sizes covered, it has great prose for an LLM, better prose than even most larger models, it's got great audio and vision, and broad language support. As self-hosted general purpose models go, it's the total package.
Qwen 3.6 is maybe better for code (though I'm beginning to think otherwise after some benchmarking I've been doing, where Gemma 4 has been overperforming expectations), but for just about anything else, Gemma 4 is the one.
If they're gimping it, why is nobody else making a better one that small?
Sure, happy to. This is a very common source of confusion, so definitely worth clarifying. We agree that Costco's difference is due to its superior leadership. The question is why has the company been able to maintain this leadership advantage over multiple generations of managers, when other companies have not.
In the book, I give dozens of examples of companies that were well-lead and then suddenly destroyed, often by outside actors who found a way to profit from their destruction. This often happened at the governance layer, while leadership watched helplessly from the sidelines.
So why hasn't this happened to Costco? I don't think it's a coincidence that Costco has a variety of "bad governance" provisions, such as a super-majority (of all shares, not just votes) provision threshold for shareholder votes, as just one example. When activists, analysts and other Wall Street actors have tried over the years to force Costco to change, its leadership has been insulated from this pressure. I think that is a structural factor that is important.
Again, structure does not _cause_ ethos. It protects it. My argument in the book is you need both.
Do they really believe that? Or do they just want to control this technology exclusively with moves like this and with pushing for regulatory capture after complaining about safety all the time? Didn’t Dario say that GPT2 or GPT3 would present a similar destroy the world level of danger?