Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
No bio...
User ID: 863
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
17hr ago
Perhaps I am too cynical but the call for government coordination seems like an obvious attempt to build themselves a moat in a largely moatless space. My own experience has been the cost of model switching is near 0. Approximately all the agents, skills, whatever I've used in my job work pretty seamlessly for any of the underlying models. Some have their quirks but essentially all of them are good enough.
"We the current frontier mousetrap makers think it should be ILLEGAL for anyone to build a better mousetrap faster than we can, for the good of humanity."
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
5d ago
I'm still not sure I follow. I don't deny that individuals can come to have aligned interests due to their membership in a group. Legal or socially permissible discrimination against members of a demographic is one way this has happened historically. How does that get you to a demographic theory of responsibility though?
If a woman suffragette commits a bombing is a woman anti-suffragette also partly responsible because she is a woman? Is a man suffragette responsible because he's aligned with the woman, even if he otherwise had no part in or knowledge of it? How abstract can a group be such that we can judge members by the actions of other members?
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
6d ago
Technically the jury found her speech towards the camera man rose to the level of "fighting words" (a First Amendment exception). She was acquitted on the original count against the child and his father.
You can search here for the case (I can't find a way to get a link). Case number 55-CR-25-6656. From the Jury instructions (document #58) as regards the charge she was convicted of:
DEFINED
Under Minnesota law, whoever, knowing or having reasonable grounds to know that it will tend to alarm, anger, or disturb others, or provoke an assault or breach of the peace, engages in offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct, or in offensive, obscene, or abusive language tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others, is guilty of a crime.
ELEMENTS
The elements of this crime are:
First, the defendant engaged in offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct, or in offensive, obscene, or abusive language tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others.
If you find that the defendant's conduct consisted only of offensive, obscene, or abusive language, you must also find that the words used were “fighting words.” Speech is not “fighting words” merely because it is racist. “Fighting words” are words that constitute personally offensive epithets that, when spoken to the ordinary person, under the particular circumstances of the case, are, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction or incite an immediate breach of the peace by those to whom such words are addressed. The offense may be based upon the utterance of fighting words alone, without resulting in actual violence. The focus is upon the nature of the words and the circumstances in which they were spoken, rather than upon the actual response.
Second, the defendant knew or believed or had reasonable grounds to know that the conduct would, or could, tend to alarm, anger, disturb, provoke an assault by, or provoke a breach of the peace by others.
Third, the defendant's act took place in a public or private place.
Fourth, the defendant's act took place on or about April 28, 2025, in Olmsted County. If you find that each of these elements has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is guilty. If you find that any element has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is not guilty.
The instructions are identical for the count on which she was acquitted.
Because any regulatory regime is likely to impose costs that they can bear but competitors may not be able to. Whatever the "verifiable, effective mechanism for coordinated pacing" is it will not be free to implement. If they are serious about their commitments, they can always go slower voluntarily. Nobody has a gun to their head telling them to improve as fast as possible.
There doesn't have to be someone today. There may be someone(s) in the future. OpenAI was far ahead in the AI space, until they weren't. I know of no reason why some other company couldn't come along and supplant both of them.
I don't really see how this is signalling giving up their lead. Giving it up to who?
More options
Context Copy link