It makes a difference if his compatriots knew he was going to do it, and took material steps to help him do it or help him get away with doing it. They argued, I believe, that they didn't know and only intended to have a peaceful protest, but the jury decided that's not true.
I don't know why you would phrase this so confrontationally. All I know is what the source article says, and it doesn't include much beyond the jury verdict that would let anyone guess what happened. If you have a link to the specific evidence that was presented at trial, or other detailed information, I'd love to see it!
At 11 this morning, I wanted to both debug an issue and take a meeting before lunch. Before AI, I would have had to just start debugging after lunch, there wouldn't have been enough time to do both. But now I had Claude debug the issue concurrently with the meeting. Its answer didn't actually make sense (I still do think I'm smarter than Claude, although the gap is narrowing!), but it showed enough of its work that I could make a good guess about what was really going on, and when I asked it to check my hypothesis I got back from lunch with some debug logs that confirmed I'd found the bug.
I can easily believe that, I agree Claude has applications.
I am disputing the idea that this is enough of a game changer to make us mourn our now lost craft. Also, I’m mentioning that we’ve discovered a world of footguns dressed as shortcuts, which we’re not taking proper care of.
First, your experience was required for that story to have a happy ending. Second, we both know someone else could probably have gone with Claude’s senseless hypothesis, asked for a fix and sent it for review. This last part is becoming pretty universal.
It's beyond credulous to give the benefit of the doubt to a spokesperson who responds to questions about a whistleblower report by complaining that the reporter is “desperate for clicks and eager to publish fake news to scare seniors." They're obviously lying, trustworthy sources do not talk this way.
In my experience, Claude and the juniors piloting it are usually receptive to quick feedback along the lines of "This is unreasonably hard to understand, please try refactoring it this way and let me know when it's cleaner".
I don't think you can infer consumer positions on IP law from positions on who ought to get paid or how much they should be paid. Many of those same consumers, and indeed many of the artists, feel that fan art of your favorite characters should be legal and unrestricted so long as nobody's making too much money off of it.
You're right. It's wrong to think that all of those people are busy writing to congress demanding new laws be enacted. The problem is, the vast majority of people (while possessing a vague sense of right and wrong) do not understand how IP law works, and what the tradeoffs vis-a-vis the public good are. I'm sure many among the supposed consumers in this survey think something akin to "there ought to be a law" -- a sentiment somtimes echoed by readers of this very forum.
What Dario Amodei said 12 months ago is that AI would be "writing essentially all of the code", and the job of software engineers would become guiding and reviewing the code generation process. That's come true at a number of companies.
The important context I think people may miss is, this does not require AI to be 10x or 5x or even 1x as good as a human programmer. Claude is worse than me in meaningful ways at the kind of code I need to write, but it’s still doing almost all my coding because after 4.6 it’s smart enough to understand when I explain what program it should have written.
If you're looking for a short term prediction, I expect with, let's say 80% confidence, that the OpenAI IPO later this year will be quietly cancelled or face a WeWork moment and be loudly cancelled. Too much of what we think we know about the economics of modern AI is built on trust in people who aren't trustworthy, and the presumption that VCs would check the financials carefully when we know they strap on blinders once they see a revenue graph they like.
My feeling is that some event will happen close-to-IPO that spooks investors, that results in OAI not IPO'ing. Remember if there are under-writers involved they will not want to go forward.
Then they will face financial distress, and questions over how they get the funding to continue as a going-concern. The only way that'll happen is via issues of shares at a lower price aka destroying the valuation of OAI compared with today.
Anthropic in comparison will be OK, as they have focused on building a viable business enterprise.
Only in the same sense that Lehman collapsing caused the 2008 crash. Nothing is monocausal, and crashes rarely happen all at once, but I expect it to be a big “uh oh” moment for investors.
Lehman’s market cap was an order of magnitude smaller than the current OpenAI valuation, I think even in inflation-adjusted terms. The intuition that a private company is small and can’t pose systemic risks just isn’t true anymore.
I never know how to engage with these kind of discussions, where "literary culture" includes only a narrow subset of the books that are published and read.
The author posts a collage of litfic novel covers and wonders why they're all so similar, but to me the answer seems obvious: litfic is a genre, whether its devotees want to call it that or not, and so it needs a consistent visual language to guide people's eyes in increasingly genre-ified bookstores. He says "every title I see" is like this, but I strongly suspect he'd agree that this is only true because he spots the romantasy section from a mile away and averts his eyes before he has to learn anything about the adventures of Violet Sorrengail.
None of the terms here are fluffy or ambiguous. They're about specific details or strategic categories that you (perhaps justifiably) don't find important. The original post's suggested rewording is reasonable, but it doesn't include all the information: the recipient won't know that the sender wants further improvement even though the latest build may be better than what's live, or that developers should avoid trading off scalability in the process.
