Exactly. And some of them are rats fleeing a sinking ship. Just look at Mrinank Sharma, who got paid a million bucks or so for a year at Anthropic, then ditched.
XLE
joined 10 months ago
I hate to hand it to airline manufacturers, but at least when they cut corners, they actually make money. The whole AI industry still hasn't turned a profit yet...
“It’s the classic technology scenario,” he said. “You’ve got a technology that’s very, very promising, but not as rigorously tested as you would like it to be, and the commercial pressure behind it is unbearable.”
Is it promising though, Michael Wooldridge? Have you recently attended any magic shows and become excited by the potential of invisibility technology?
I appreciate the people who help make sure AI doesn't receive an ounce of the credit it doesn't deserve
Considering the Pine Phone's price, poor performance is an understandable trade-off.
The stupid/malicious dichotomy just keeps coming up with you, huh. How did you miss the explanations? Ditto for your original wrong comment.
Even if you think you are right, o arbiter of truth, apparently dozens of people disagree with your take when shown context. That's on you bro. Go fix it.
So what's the problem?
"What's the problem" with the entire American economy being moored to a bunch of companies all acting as flaky as Enron and friends during the dot-com crash?
Edit: just realized FaceDeer is obsessed with AI stuff, so he's probably here just to troll with questions he already knows the answers to.
If anybody leaves an AI company with a fat paycheck, promises to "be honest about the real problems," and then proceeds to regurgitate things the AI company CEOs say: be suspicious.
Exhibit A is Anthropic millionaire Mrinank Sharma, who only mentioned (future) peril from AI and AI-made bioweapons, two fictional scenarios on the short list that Anthropic officially endorses. It's a list of things that please Anthropic investors.
Real-world stuff like AI psychosis, poisoning people's air, or generating CSAM doesn't get a mention from him. There's no profit in acknowledging those things, so he won't.
I told you what your point was. Over and over. And I told you how you were misleading (and now, just intentionally dishonest). Quite a few people seem to understand exactly what I told you.
So if you think there's a communication issue, it's on your side to fix.
Maybe the right way in terms of privacy, but I find it all to be rather monopolistic. (Brave's ad replacement is infamous in this respect; they trashed it but blocking publisher ads and creating their own is pretty similar to their initial proposal).
I'm also not totally sold on differential privacy because, as far as I know, it's still relatively experimental and not very battle-tested. I remember Mozilla saying something to the effect of anonynization only working if a large pool of users commit to their tests.
Even if you think you are right, o arbiter of truth, apparently dozens of people disagree with your take when shown context. That's on you bro. Go fix it.