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.
  • edsanders2@mstdn.socialE edsanders2@mstdn.social

    @johnnyvibrant @cwebber

    Dude, nobody is growing anything in the world of AI except their egos and bank accounts.

    It's not doing anything it wasn't programmed to do, and it won't. Ever.

    johnnyvibrant@mastodonapp.ukJ This user is from outside of this forum
    johnnyvibrant@mastodonapp.ukJ This user is from outside of this forum
    johnnyvibrant@mastodonapp.uk
    wrote sidst redigeret af
    #29

    @edsanders2 @cwebber Agreed LLMs wont do anything not told to do, but they are kind of grown.

    This is not the greatest article but as I understand it they are made like: https://blog.ciaops.com/2026/04/12/llms-are-grown-not-coded-and-that-changes-everything/

    This book goes into more details about how weird LLMs really are and then falls into doom but the authors are respected AI specialists and they say pretty much the same thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_Anyone_Builds_It,_Everyone_Dies

    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*.

      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
      #30

      @cwebber @FantasticalEconomics I still don't get how it's marketing. Personally, I would *not* want to invest in the "kill everyone" company... Aside from the "killing everyone", I wouldn't even be able to collect on my returns! 🤣

      lily_and_frog@mastodon.artL 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*.

        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
        #31

        @cwebber

        How many idiot CEOs wondering right now "if it can destroy the world, surely it can replace entire departments".

        [No it can't because breaking stuff is easy]

        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*.

          davey_cakes@mastodon.ieD This user is from outside of this forum
          davey_cakes@mastodon.ieD This user is from outside of this forum
          davey_cakes@mastodon.ie
          wrote sidst redigeret af
          #32

          @cwebber

          They always want a regulatory moat, these fuckers.

          As for IPO though - pure speculation here - I wonder if their finances look like absolute muck and they're not quite ready to be seen with their pants down to the extent you need to before an IPO. They could be absolute dogs on paper, and I suspect they are.

          Some had it that if IPO didn't happen this year they OpenAI + Anthropic are in trouble. Which would mean they are in trouble, and may be trying to dress it up for acquisition.

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

            @cwebber @FantasticalEconomics I still don't get how it's marketing. Personally, I would *not* want to invest in the "kill everyone" company... Aside from the "killing everyone", I wouldn't even be able to collect on my returns! 🤣

            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
            #33

            @mk30 @cwebber @FantasticalEconomics

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

            mk30@tilde.zoneM 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • ikari@8bit.redI ikari@8bit.red

              @cwebber question: open weight LLMs tend to come from China. Would the US regulations reach that far? (pardon my ignorance, in Europe i can use either :P)

              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
              #34

              @ikari @cwebber I bet it'd be like those inexpensive electric cars from China: all they can really do is stop USAmericans from using them 🤷 and, in this case and more consequentially, US companies

              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*.

                gimulnautti@mastodon.greenG This user is from outside of this forum
                gimulnautti@mastodon.greenG This user is from outside of this forum
                gimulnautti@mastodon.green
                wrote sidst redigeret af
                #35

                @cwebber Standard issue monopoly through regulatory capture. Make it impossible for competition to comply.

                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*.

                  ah_99@mastodonapp.ukA This user is from outside of this forum
                  ah_99@mastodonapp.ukA This user is from outside of this forum
                  ah_99@mastodonapp.uk
                  wrote sidst redigeret af
                  #36

                  @cwebber
                  As the world of the Internet Search Engines went, AI companies will sell biased AI searches to the highest bidders ... something the CCP already do...

                  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*.

                    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
                    #37

                    @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 nobody@mastodon.acm.orgN ricci@discuss.systemsR 3 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*.

                      nemobis@mamot.frN This user is from outside of this forum
                      nemobis@mamot.frN This user is from outside of this forum
                      nemobis@mamot.fr
                      wrote sidst redigeret af
                      #38

                      @cwebber Also by a happy coincidence they had this epiphany shortly before an expected rise in interest rates.

                      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

                        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
                                          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