Anthropic officially funds lobbyists in excess than other huge companies like Microsoft or Amazon. Its latest $20M outlay [1] alone is more that the spend of either company. Their lobbying spend combined is now on par with companies like META, which have tons of regulatory battle fronts (unlike Anthropic)
Right. I had a 100% manual hobby project that did a load of parametric CAD in Python. The problem with sharing this was either actively running a server, trying to port the stack to emscripten including OCCT, or rewriting in JS, something I am only vaguely experienced in.
In ~5 hours of prompting, coding, testing, tweaking, the STL outputs are 1:1 (having the original is essential for this) and it runs entirely locally once the browser has loaded.
I don’t pretend that I’m a frontend developer now but it’s the sort of thing that would have taken me at least days, probably longer if I took the time to learn how each piece worked/fitted together.
It’s also offensive to only think older people have these problems. Have any of you considered race or sex or gender when talking about these issues? It’s really offensive not to include all these other categories. Maybe certain genders have this problem or maybe I enjoy getting offended by everything.
50,000 die per year from suicide due to depression. Self deprecation and other self esteem issues should not be joked about. It is highly offensive and inconsiderate.
As far as I can tell any gender issues is just culture lets some people become helpless when they could. Meanwhile many people lose cognitive functionias they get old. Thus elderly is a safe fact while any other gender reference is citation needed.
Citing citations is offensive and insensitive. When someone claims their emotions are extremely hurt do you go to them and say "I need citations for that"? Of course not!
Many geek hobbies like 3D printing and home automation are becoming full of unnecessarily smug evangelization if you're not using hivemind approved software and tools, even if it requires a lot more work to do.
It's nice to a see a project encourage their userbase to be realistic about what it is and refrain from trying to force it on everyone as the only acceptable way to use a robot vaccuum.
> Many geek hobbies like 3D printing and home automation are becoming full of unnecessarily smug evangelization if you're not using hivemind approved software and tools, even if it requires a lot more work to do.
A mix between gatekeeping and tribalism. Reasonable people realize that others who want to enjoy a hobby do not have to do the hobby the same way as they do, or make the "right" choices.
I'm more interested in how moderators react to such accounts. There are a couple accounts that do stuff like that, but somehow they are always "just on the line" somehow without crossing it (in the eyes of moderators). Essentially saying "kill all {insert race}" is bannable, but what this person is doing (continuously) is all good.
I think that the difference may be whether the comment portrays the person as the cat or the mouse, or an ally to either.
For instance: the recent thread on student protests in Iran which last I checked (before the discussion propelled the actual submission off of the front page) was teeming with tacit appeals for foreign intervention, plausibly by the most vocal critics of the most likely interventionists.
Maybe not the best example for you. But I think it’s a matter of context. A comment is censurable on HN according to how it appears in relation to its more dominate and/or more well-received siblings.
It also may help to consider submissions here as belonging to something like a decentralized subreddits; drawing crowds all familiar with an approved narratives to convene around, for or against respectively. The trick may be to strategically posit your offensive remarks where they’re least likely to be received as such.
I can’t help but feel like you’re drawing this freedom along arbitrary limits. If something is subject to whether it’s popular shouldn’t there be forces who influence that?
>I can’t help but feel like you’re drawing this freedom along arbitrary limits
I'm not. Saying that freedom of speech is for unpopular opinions doesn't imply it only protects unpopular opinions, any more than saying that wheelchair ramps are for wheelchairs doesn't imply only wheelchair people can use it.
If we’re discussing wheelchair ramps we are going to default to matters related to people in wheelchairs first because they are who the ramps are for.
Whether a person is in a wheelchair and the access that wheelchair ramps are meant to provide them is seldom arbitrary. Is it not? For example, there are comprehensive laws in the US that regulate them.
You said freedom of speech is exactly what unpopular opinions are for. What do you mean? If popularity isn’t subject to the arbitrary whims of people then how is it determined?
Can popularity be regulated like wheelchair accessibility? If so then how is it anything but inevitable that someone’s freedom of speech will be restricted depending on the nature of the law.
>Whether a person is in a wheelchair and the access that wheelchair ramps are meant to provide them is seldom arbitrary. Is it not? For example, there are comprehensive laws in the US that regulate them.
There's also comprehensive case law on what is first amendment protected speech, but how "comprehensive" the relevant regulations are is irrelevant to my point. Despite regulations clearly intending wheelchair ramps to be used by people in wheelchairs, anyone can use them. We don't ask "how is a wheelchair user determined" or whatever.
> We don't ask "how is a wheelchair user determined" or whatever.
Because it’s obvious who’s in a wheelchair and who isn’t.
Why does it appear difficult for you to explain un/popularity with regard to free speech though?
If you want to make the point that popularity could be determined by case law then that sounds fair, I mean it’s an idea I would look into myself at least. But you’ve already deemed that to be irrelevant to your own point. It’s like you shot yourself in the foot. I appreciate the assistance though.
I’d infinitely prefer a relevant wikipedia article to an AI “Answer” that is almost always wrong.
Google lens image search used to be amazing, I tried a repeat of a search I did before of a piece of art, it showed the same piece but confidently listed the artist and year wrong by about 300 years.
I’ve had relatives do “research” about things I mentioned I needed to do, and they’ve just sent screenshots of the incorrect AI answer.
It’s made google almost entirely useless, there is zero incentive for them to try to make search better (vs incentive to make it worse) and even if they did want to make it better the sheer volumes of slop have made that even harder.
We’ve completely sabotaged out ability to collate information at scale as a civilization, for the benefit of a few companies that were already the largest in the world to begin with. And it turns out, very few people notice or even care about this.
almost always wrong is just incorrect. Ask it who made Hackernews and it says Paul Graham with a informational paragraph it scraped from Wikipedia, without me clicking into Wikipedia. I can provide so many examples.
I mean Andrew is an extreme case. If he weren’t as out-of-favour I imagine nothing would have happened, and this has been _entirely_ forced by external information.
I assume that otherwise they would have less of an issue. It’s not like he married someone slight off-white, that would be real grounds for excommunication.
reply