Nobody would have an issue with that. The problem here is DoD insisting on that kind of control, then threatening and retaliating against Anthropic for declining to participate rather than simply walking away and engaging with a competitor.
Why is DoD contracting with Anthropic exclusively rather than OpenAI or Google? Their models are all roughly as powerful and they seem both more capable and more willing to cozy up with the military (and this administration) than a relatively scrappy startup focused on model sentience and well-being. Hell, even Grok would be a better fit ideologically and temperamentally.
Hasn't the state of the art in genAI tools been making its way to open source/local inside of a year? Between that and pressure from Chinese firms, it would be hard for the current leaders to monopolize and enshittify their products. There isn't really a network effect to lock people in like with social media.
What's pretend-rhetoric about it? They're positing agents will prove to be very capable, but that this would ultimately be a bad thing by automating away too much of the economy. You can argue whether that's plausible or not, but it isn't an incoherent or vapid argument.
I suggest you read the annotation if that question isn't just rhetorical. I'm not familiar with Ed, but he has a pretty good take down in here if you can get past his somewhat juvenile writing style.
It is a problem when your doomsday timeline for obsolescence is behind the minute you publish.
The memo itself was fantasy doomer porn on day 1.
I could maybe see the worth of this if it was a $60k medical bill to save a dying cat. But even a successful clone will only be physically identical, not behaviorally. And it feels like the resemblance would just magnify all the differences.
I love cats and dogs dearly, so I don't say this lightly, but please just get a new cat (even the same breed!) and save the money for a worthier cause.
Would it actually be physically identical? Don't certain characteristics like spots/stripes/etc have some amount of variance due to embryo development?
Specifically, they changed a "commenting as: [their alias]" UI element to "commenting as: [name of the blogger they were fighting with]".
Compare (the changed element is near the very bottom of the page; replace the "[dot]" since these URLs seem to trigger spam filters for some commenters):
The accusation is not that they alter pages at all -- they obviously need to in order to make some pages readable/functional, bypass paywalls, or hide account names used to do so. The Wayback Machine does something similar with YouTube to make old videos playable.
The allegation here is that they altered page content not just to remove their own alias, but to insert the name of the blogger they were targeting. That moves it from a defensible technical change for accessibility to being part of their bizarre revenge campaign against someone who crossed them.
Interesting theory. It would also be a good way to subtly undermine the viability of news outlets, not to mention the insidious potential of altering snapshots at will. OTOH, I'd expect a state-sponsored effort to be more professional in terms of not threatening and smearing some blogger who questioned them.
If I were an intelligence agency wanting to throw people off my scent, maybe I'd set up or pay off a blogger to track down my site's "owner" and then do some immature shit in response to absolutely confirm forever that the blogger was right.
reply