Skip to content
  • Hjem
  • Seneste
  • Etiketter
  • Populære
  • Verden
  • Bruger
  • Grupper
Temaer
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Kollaps
FARVEL BIG TECH
  1. Forside
  2. Ikke-kategoriseret
  3. It's pretty simple.

It's pretty simple.

Planlagt Fastgjort Låst Flyttet Ikke-kategoriseret
58 Indlæg 46 Posters 0 Visninger
  • Ældste til nyeste
  • Nyeste til ældste
  • Most Votes
Svar
  • Svar som emne
Login for at svare
Denne tråd er blevet slettet. Kun brugere med emne behandlings privilegier kan se den.
  • evan@cosocial.caE evan@cosocial.ca

    @cwebber so, I tend to agree with this pov.

    But the current AI safety conversation started when an ex-Anthropic researcher said he was scared, which doesn't fit the corporate astroturfing narrative.

    https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/anthropic-researcher-quits-over-out-of-control-ai-fears-707b7628

    evan@cosocial.caE This user is from outside of this forum
    evan@cosocial.caE This user is from outside of this forum
    evan@cosocial.ca
    wrote sidst redigeret af
    #39

    @cwebber I mean, maybe the guy was part of a marketing maneuver, but that seems kind of extreme on his part. Or maybe the companies capitalized on the concerns he raised.

    brunogirin@mastodon.me.ukB megmac@social.treehouse.systemsM 2 Replies Last reply
    0
    • cwebber@social.coopC cwebber@social.coop

      It's pretty simple. You're hearing "We're so scared of the AIs, we need to reign them in" from the very US companies building and selling them for two reasons:

      - They're about to IPO, and it's amazing marketing for them
      - They want a regulatory moat, since they're deeply worried about the open weight LLMs. They want everyone dependent on this tech and to be *the only ones legally permitted to dispense it*.

      aeva@mastodon.gamedev.placeA This user is from outside of this forum
      aeva@mastodon.gamedev.placeA This user is from outside of this forum
      aeva@mastodon.gamedev.place
      wrote sidst redigeret af
      #40

      @cwebber the funniest thing possible that could happen is they get the regulatory moat, followed by the bubble finally popping and they all go bankrupt

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • evan@cosocial.caE evan@cosocial.ca

        @cwebber I mean, maybe the guy was part of a marketing maneuver, but that seems kind of extreme on his part. Or maybe the companies capitalized on the concerns he raised.

        brunogirin@mastodon.me.ukB This user is from outside of this forum
        brunogirin@mastodon.me.ukB This user is from outside of this forum
        brunogirin@mastodon.me.uk
        wrote sidst redigeret af
        #41

        @evan @cwebber or he got paid a shed load of money?

        evan@cosocial.caE 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • lily_and_frog@mastodon.artL lily_and_frog@mastodon.art

          @mk30 @cwebber @FantasticalEconomics

          It not the "kill everyone" part that is the selling point. It's the "so powerful".

          mk30@tilde.zoneM This user is from outside of this forum
          mk30@tilde.zoneM This user is from outside of this forum
          mk30@tilde.zone
          wrote sidst redigeret af
          #42

          @Lily_and_frog @cwebber @FantasticalEconomics but...if it kills everyone.... Do you see where I'm going with this?

          lily_and_frog@mastodon.artL raphaelmorgan@disabled.socialR 2 Replies Last reply
          0
          • bytebro@mastodonapp.ukB bytebro@mastodonapp.uk

            @mcc @cwebber

            Now, I want some input from mathematicians or philosophers!

            "Presumably a truth wouldn't usually prove *both* a thing and its opposite"

            I seem to recall that Gödel had some stuff to say about that...

            foucault_this@mastodon.socialF This user is from outside of this forum
            foucault_this@mastodon.socialF This user is from outside of this forum
            foucault_this@mastodon.social
            wrote sidst redigeret af
            #43

            @bytebro @mcc @cwebber nested incompleteness; how can the auditor audit itself

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • evan@cosocial.caE evan@cosocial.ca

              @cwebber I mean, maybe the guy was part of a marketing maneuver, but that seems kind of extreme on his part. Or maybe the companies capitalized on the concerns he raised.

              megmac@social.treehouse.systemsM This user is from outside of this forum
              megmac@social.treehouse.systemsM This user is from outside of this forum
              megmac@social.treehouse.systems
              wrote sidst redigeret af
              #44

              @evan @cwebber not all marketing is pre-planned. Sometimes useful things happen and you take advantage of them. Someone had to decide this was a story the wsj should run, and they may or may not be invested in this narrative.

              evan@cosocial.caE 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • mk30@tilde.zoneM mk30@tilde.zone

                @Lily_and_frog @cwebber @FantasticalEconomics but...if it kills everyone.... Do you see where I'm going with this?

                lily_and_frog@mastodon.artL This user is from outside of this forum
                lily_and_frog@mastodon.artL This user is from outside of this forum
                lily_and_frog@mastodon.art
                wrote sidst redigeret af
                #45

                @mk30 @cwebber @FantasticalEconomics

                Yeah, it smells of desperation.

                On the other hand, no one in power cared for the long term for a very long time.

                All those AI investors never stopped to ask themselves "who will buy the stuff if everyone loses their job" either...

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • cwebber@social.coopC cwebber@social.coop

                  It's pretty simple. You're hearing "We're so scared of the AIs, we need to reign them in" from the very US companies building and selling them for two reasons:

                  - They're about to IPO, and it's amazing marketing for them
                  - They want a regulatory moat, since they're deeply worried about the open weight LLMs. They want everyone dependent on this tech and to be *the only ones legally permitted to dispense it*.

                  mattmay@mstdn.socialM This user is from outside of this forum
                  mattmay@mstdn.socialM This user is from outside of this forum
                  mattmay@mstdn.social
                  wrote sidst redigeret af
                  #46

                  @cwebber I'm writing an explainer on this. Should be out in the next day or so. I broke it down into four main parties: OpenAI/SpaceX/Anthropic; capital markets, the US government, and creepy nerds.

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • brunogirin@mastodon.me.ukB brunogirin@mastodon.me.uk

                    @evan @cwebber or he got paid a shed load of money?

                    evan@cosocial.caE This user is from outside of this forum
                    evan@cosocial.caE This user is from outside of this forum
                    evan@cosocial.ca
                    wrote sidst redigeret af
                    #47

                    @brunogirin @cwebber I mean, almost by definition!

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • megmac@social.treehouse.systemsM megmac@social.treehouse.systems

                      @evan @cwebber not all marketing is pre-planned. Sometimes useful things happen and you take advantage of them. Someone had to decide this was a story the wsj should run, and they may or may not be invested in this narrative.

                      evan@cosocial.caE This user is from outside of this forum
                      evan@cosocial.caE This user is from outside of this forum
                      evan@cosocial.ca
                      wrote sidst redigeret af
                      #48

                      @megmac @cwebber right. Taking advantage of the controversy.

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • mk30@tilde.zoneM mk30@tilde.zone

                        @Lily_and_frog @cwebber @FantasticalEconomics but...if it kills everyone.... Do you see where I'm going with this?

                        raphaelmorgan@disabled.socialR This user is from outside of this forum
                        raphaelmorgan@disabled.socialR This user is from outside of this forum
                        raphaelmorgan@disabled.social
                        wrote sidst redigeret af
                        #49

                        @mk30 @Lily_and_frog @cwebber @FantasticalEconomics rich people don't understand that they're also mortal. To them, it's the "kill everyone but me" machine, their favorite type!

                        mk30@tilde.zoneM 1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • raphaelmorgan@disabled.socialR raphaelmorgan@disabled.social

                          @mk30 @Lily_and_frog @cwebber @FantasticalEconomics rich people don't understand that they're also mortal. To them, it's the "kill everyone but me" machine, their favorite type!

                          mk30@tilde.zoneM This user is from outside of this forum
                          mk30@tilde.zoneM This user is from outside of this forum
                          mk30@tilde.zone
                          wrote sidst redigeret af
                          #50

                          @raphaelmorgan @Lily_and_frog @cwebber @FantasticalEconomics so far this is the only answer that makes some sense.

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • cwebber@social.coopC cwebber@social.coop

                            It's pretty simple. You're hearing "We're so scared of the AIs, we need to reign them in" from the very US companies building and selling them for two reasons:

                            - They're about to IPO, and it's amazing marketing for them
                            - They want a regulatory moat, since they're deeply worried about the open weight LLMs. They want everyone dependent on this tech and to be *the only ones legally permitted to dispense it*.

                            homlett@mamot.frH This user is from outside of this forum
                            homlett@mamot.frH This user is from outside of this forum
                            homlett@mamot.fr
                            wrote sidst redigeret af
                            #51

                            RE: https://mamot.fr/@homlett/117270256444800551

                            @cwebber

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • cwebber@social.coopC cwebber@social.coop

                              It's pretty simple. You're hearing "We're so scared of the AIs, we need to reign them in" from the very US companies building and selling them for two reasons:

                              - They're about to IPO, and it's amazing marketing for them
                              - They want a regulatory moat, since they're deeply worried about the open weight LLMs. They want everyone dependent on this tech and to be *the only ones legally permitted to dispense it*.

                              npars01@mstdn.socialN This user is from outside of this forum
                              npars01@mstdn.socialN This user is from outside of this forum
                              npars01@mstdn.social
                              wrote sidst redigeret af
                              #52

                              @cwebber

                              Regulatory capture -- always a fun game for sociopaths

                              https://www.theregister.com/ai-and-ml/2026/09/14/big-ai-sets-out-its-terms-for-regulatory-capture-and-calls-it-pace-the-frontier/5296067

                              https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2026/09/14/viral-ai-doom-post-sparks-market-fear-and-regulatory-capture-concerns-for-nasdaq-nvda-nasdaq-googl-nasdaq-amd/

                              https://www.theregreview.org/2026/08/31/shapiro-regulatory-capture-and-the-fossil-fuel-companies-attempts-to-preempt-tort-lawsuits/

                              Tort law manipulation in disguise.

                              The fossil fuel industry & its shills in AI want what the gun lobby got; the impunity to mass murder
                              https://themodernregulator.com/how-regulatory-capture-works-and-what-regulators-can-do-about-it/

                              The goal is to shield profits & privilege to a select few.
                              https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/regulatory-capture/

                              https://www.rstreet.org/commentary/bootleggers-baptists-and-ai/

                              It also balloons profits for bootleggers, just like Prohibition did for the mafia

                              mxchara@cyberpunk.lolM 1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • cwebber@social.coopC cwebber@social.coop

                                It's pretty simple. You're hearing "We're so scared of the AIs, we need to reign them in" from the very US companies building and selling them for two reasons:

                                - They're about to IPO, and it's amazing marketing for them
                                - They want a regulatory moat, since they're deeply worried about the open weight LLMs. They want everyone dependent on this tech and to be *the only ones legally permitted to dispense it*.

                                budududuroiu@hachyderm.ioB This user is from outside of this forum
                                budududuroiu@hachyderm.ioB This user is from outside of this forum
                                budududuroiu@hachyderm.io
                                wrote sidst redigeret af
                                #53

                                @cwebber we do have to reign AI in, AI right now is enough of a threat, but the only people talking about safety are the ones that stand to gain financially from regulatory capture. Yet again the progressives self-own by blindly going the opposite direction of whatever capital is saying

                                1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • evan@cosocial.caE evan@cosocial.ca

                                  @cwebber so, I tend to agree with this pov.

                                  But the current AI safety conversation started when an ex-Anthropic researcher said he was scared, which doesn't fit the corporate astroturfing narrative.

                                  https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/anthropic-researcher-quits-over-out-of-control-ai-fears-707b7628

                                  nobody@mastodon.acm.orgN This user is from outside of this forum
                                  nobody@mastodon.acm.orgN This user is from outside of this forum
                                  nobody@mastodon.acm.org
                                  wrote sidst redigeret af
                                  #54

                                  @evan @cwebber part of the HPMoR crowd...

                                  1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • evan@cosocial.caE evan@cosocial.ca

                                    @cwebber so, I tend to agree with this pov.

                                    But the current AI safety conversation started when an ex-Anthropic researcher said he was scared, which doesn't fit the corporate astroturfing narrative.

                                    https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/anthropic-researcher-quits-over-out-of-control-ai-fears-707b7628

                                    ricci@discuss.systemsR This user is from outside of this forum
                                    ricci@discuss.systemsR This user is from outside of this forum
                                    ricci@discuss.systems
                                    wrote sidst redigeret af
                                    #55

                                    @evan @cwebber whatever the "real" story here, they are bad people and should not get what they want

                                    1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • aoristdual@floss.socialA aoristdual@floss.social

                                      @cwebber I suspect also that they would like to reign in their outrageous R&D costs.

                                      They know their customers are not loyal and are sensitive to both price and perceived quality.

                                      Establishing an anticompetitive cabal fixes that problem.

                                      skry@mastodon.socialS This user is from outside of this forum
                                      skry@mastodon.socialS This user is from outside of this forum
                                      skry@mastodon.social
                                      wrote sidst redigeret af
                                      #56

                                      @aoristdual @cwebber rein: horses and LLMs
                                      reign: kings

                                      Thank you for coming to my TED talk.

                                      1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • npars01@mstdn.socialN npars01@mstdn.social

                                        @cwebber

                                        Regulatory capture -- always a fun game for sociopaths

                                        https://www.theregister.com/ai-and-ml/2026/09/14/big-ai-sets-out-its-terms-for-regulatory-capture-and-calls-it-pace-the-frontier/5296067

                                        https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2026/09/14/viral-ai-doom-post-sparks-market-fear-and-regulatory-capture-concerns-for-nasdaq-nvda-nasdaq-googl-nasdaq-amd/

                                        https://www.theregreview.org/2026/08/31/shapiro-regulatory-capture-and-the-fossil-fuel-companies-attempts-to-preempt-tort-lawsuits/

                                        Tort law manipulation in disguise.

                                        The fossil fuel industry & its shills in AI want what the gun lobby got; the impunity to mass murder
                                        https://themodernregulator.com/how-regulatory-capture-works-and-what-regulators-can-do-about-it/

                                        The goal is to shield profits & privilege to a select few.
                                        https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/regulatory-capture/

                                        https://www.rstreet.org/commentary/bootleggers-baptists-and-ai/

                                        It also balloons profits for bootleggers, just like Prohibition did for the mafia

                                        mxchara@cyberpunk.lolM This user is from outside of this forum
                                        mxchara@cyberpunk.lolM This user is from outside of this forum
                                        mxchara@cyberpunk.lol
                                        wrote sidst redigeret af
                                        #57

                                        @Npars01 @cwebber it's really a neat trick, effectively the tech sector's way of saying "we can wreck so much of your shit by screwing with your software, so maybe you should just give us the money and stop complaining"

                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • mcc@mastodon.socialM mcc@mastodon.social

                                          @bytebro @cwebber Gödel said you can be complete *or* consistent. You get to pick one! And the Gödel sentences that prove you can't have both are *really* complicated, he had to work hard to design one. And English isn't a formal logic

                                          lritter@mastodon.gamedev.placeL This user is from outside of this forum
                                          lritter@mastodon.gamedev.placeL This user is from outside of this forum
                                          lritter@mastodon.gamedev.place
                                          wrote sidst redigeret af
                                          #58

                                          @mcc > Gödel said you can be complete *or* consistent.

                                          ah is this why good backwards compatibility is at odds with a compact interface

                                          1 Reply Last reply
                                          0
                                          • jeppe@uddannelse.socialJ jeppe@uddannelse.social shared this topic
                                          Svar
                                          • Svar som emne
                                          Login for at svare
                                          • Ældste til nyeste
                                          • Nyeste til ældste
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Log ind

                                          • Har du ikke en konto? Tilmeld

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          Powered by NodeBB Contributors
                                          Graciously hosted by data.coop
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Hjem
                                          • Seneste
                                          • Etiketter
                                          • Populære
                                          • Verden
                                          • Bruger
                                          • Grupper