Quantumfreakonomics
No bio...
User ID: 324
Quantumfreakonomics
1d ago
>tfw you can't commit suicide because you're still paralyzed from your previous suicide attempt.
Quantumfreakonomics
2d ago
I saw Matt Walsh compare this to the Karen Read case, which is an interesting angle, but it really doesn't make the point Matt thinks it does. I didn't watch the Clancy trial, but I did watch most of the Read trials. (For context, Karen Read was accused of hitting her boyfriend with her car after an argument while drunk) On a superficial culture-war angle, the cases are similar:
- They were both in Massachussets.
- Both Karen Read and Lindsay Clancy are middle-aged reasonably-photogenic white women.
- The first proceeding in both cases ended in a hung-jury mistrial.
- I would not be surprised if the people outside the Plymouth County Courthouse are the exact same people who were outside the Norfolk County Courthouse last year.
The reason this doesn't make Matt's point is that the Karen Read prosecution was a shitshow. The injuries to the victim's body didn't look like a car impact, all of the people who were at the location the body was found on the night of the incident were caught in a bunch of incredibly suspicious lies and omissions, and the investigators assigned to the case were incredibly unprofessional, biased, and plausibly planted evidence. The reputation of Massachussets law enfocement still hasn't recovered.
Quantumfreakonomics
2d ago
A speedrunning automaton picks Bulbasaur. A real AGI that understands truth, beauty, and The American Way would pick charmander.
Quantumfreakonomics
2d ago
I had trouble with Pokemon games when I was 6. Mt. Moon was an almost insurmountable challenge.
Quantumfreakonomics
2d ago
I want to know which starter the different models pick.
Quantumfreakonomics
2d ago
I don't know what any of these eval scores mean. I no longer have the ability to intuitively "feel" how much more intelligent each iterative model release is. I don't know how to code. I don't know how to do graduate-level math. These models have been smarter than me for quite some time.
Quantumfreakonomics
4d ago
Maybe Dario is just racist? Are there any prominant East Asians at Anthropic? You know wokeness is dead because people don't even consider this as a possibility anymore.
Quantumfreakonomics
5d ago
We request that the U.S. government support an international effort to develop the technical and governance tools needed to deliberately pace the frontier of automated AI development.”
Yes, as of July 2026 this is the ask. The frontier labs were not founded in July 2026. As of January 2026, official Anthropic policy was that they would not continue scaling if certain risk metrics were met. In February 2026, they “updated” this policy to clarify that Anthropic was making no unilateral commitment to pause, and that them not building Skynet was contingent on OpenAI not building Skynet. Now they seem to be taking the next step of only committing to not build Skynet if the government takes specific Anthropic-approved steps to prevent OpenAI from building Skynet.
Quantumfreakonomics
5d ago
I have it on good authority that the, “how would you feel if the company’s stock went to zero,” question has been a part of the standard Anthropic interview for quite some time. Despite this, no company in history has increased in equity value faster than Anthropic. It really is quite curious. I’m skeptical of the proposition that Anthropic employees are our moral and intellectual superiors, but clearly it cannot be discarded outright.
Is There Real Anti-Trust Risk From A Coordinated AI Lab Pause?
In AI-pause discussions it is increasingly common to hear the "anti-trust" objection. The idea is that if the labs were to coordinate a pause in frontier AI development, this would be a "conspiracy in restraint of trade" and therefore illegal.
Putting aside the question of whether it is ethical to risk a double-digit chance of destroying the world in order to avoid getting sued (it isn't), is this even a realistic possibility? My impression is that anti-trust law in the United States is legitimately quite fuzzy (as the NCAA is currently discovering).
Putting my cards on the table, I think this argument is cope. The labs want to pretend that they want to pause, but they don't actually want to pause. "If she wanted to, she would," etc. Just today, Anthropic put out a new statement containing the following sentence:
"To be clear about where we stand: we believe the world would benefit if the industry adopted a lawful, verifiable, effective mechanism for coordinated pacing as soon as possible."
It seems like every time I read a statement from them, they've added more and more qualifications. Are they going to keep racing until congress passes a specific anti-trust exemption? That arguably seems like what the word "lawful" is implying.
Moral hazard. Sports team owners get the blame whenever the team is persistantly bad (or just persistantly mediocre), and unlike coaches or GMs, they can't be fired for poor performance. The only way to force-out an owner is to catch him in the midst of some impropriety. This makes sports team owners prime targets for TMZ-style exposes.
More options
Context Copy link