> But people don't actually care about the environment. They care about looking like they care about the environment, and sending industrial processes somewhere else. There is a difference.

The idea that people setting pollution rules secretly don't care is silly.

California can't fix the whole world's problems.

I'd expect the security team to realize what the code is treating as a secret isn't actually secret.

But there's a second insight that seems tough for a security review to catch. You have to realize that even though you can't do anything obviously malicious with the API, there is a billing problem.

That does happen, it's just usually not when the card expires, but when the follow up billing emails get ignored for some period.

This is one of the reasons people have suggested using a different provider for backups.

You can skip the "in tech" part.

Feels like they'll use it for purposes Anthropic didn't approve of, and then turn around and blame them when it turns out asking ChatGPT to determine which ships are hostile was a bad idea.

That's exactly what's going to happen because it's already happening: companies and people leaped on "it wasn't us it was the AI" immediately.

If the only defense you can think up is that Hamas is worse, it's a bad sign.

If you imagine it just keeps improving, the end point would be some sort of AGI though. Logically, once you have something better at making software than humans, you can ask it to make a better AI than we were able to make.

I don’t think that follows, nor do I think it will keep improving indefinitely. It will certainly continue to improve for a while.

We don’t need anything close to AGI to render the job “software engineer” as we know it today completely obsolete. Ever hear of a lorimer?

If it doesn't follow, why not?

The other possibility is, as you say, progress slows down before its better than humans. But then how is it replacing them? How does a worse horse replace horses?

I said I don’t think it follows, and you certainly gave no support for the idea that it must follow. Logically speaking, it’s possible for improvements to continue indefinitely in specific domains, and never come close to AGI.

Progress in LLMs will not slow down before they are better at programming than humans. Not “better than humans.” Better at programming. Just like computers are better than humans at a whole bunch of other things.

Computers have gotten steadily better at adding and multiplying and yet there is no AGI or expectation thereof as a result.

Either the AI can do better than humans at programming, or it can't. If I ask it to make an improved AI, or better tools for making an improved AI, and it can't do it, then at best it's matching human output.

All the current AI success is due to computers getting better at adding and multiplying. That's genuinely the core of how they work. The people who believe AGI is imminent believe the opposite of that last claim.

No one is talking about AGI in this thread except you, though. The post said nothing about it. It's an absolute non sequitur that you brought up yourself.

They've faced a number of lawsuits for this, and paid out settlements. They are presumably not following the law.

Even experienced artists look at reference. Unless they had an elephant or sketch of one right in front of them, minor issues are understandable.

Even then we're assuming it's not stylized. They clearly wanted a nice tile pattern, and might have made deliberate tweaks to get that.

They all agree. A couple of them just chose to pretend they didn't.