Besides what AI companies are doing in regards to the common man, he's mostly talking about enterprise and how companies like Anthropic are controlling Enterprise users data. Eventually this will change as most enterprises will always want control over model settings and compute.
While his criticism of OpenAI and Anthropic is likely to be true, it is intended to be a sales pitch for a new product of Palantir, "Sovereign AI OS", which is promoted under the slogan "The future of AI is on-prem."
This is claimed to be "a turnkey AI datacenter — from hardware procurement to application deployment".
Obviously, a product conceived for "on-prem AI" is the opposite of the cloud strategy of OpenAI and Anthropic, so there is no wonder that Alex Karp suddenly emerged as their biggest critic, who exposed that enterprises are tricked into "paying for tokens that create no value" and that the AI companies "are stealing" their customers data.
When billionaires quarrel, I assume that everything bad they say about each other is true, unlike what they say about themselves.
While my opinion about Palantir is very low, in this case I have to agree with how they promote their product, i.e. that the only way in which you can rely on AI for a business is to run an open-weights model on your own hardware.
It's been more than 2 months since Mythos was released to a select group of companies to prevent this scenario. I wouldn't mind if Anthropic were to delay the release as many months as it takes, as long that at some point, they release the full model to everyone.
Because what are you implying otherwise? "There are huge vulnerabilities everywhere, it'd be bad if people were to find them!" How is this suddenly the acceptable take towards cybersec? Wouldn't you WANT them to be found and then fixed? If anything, today it's mythos, in 2 years it's OpenMythos, in 6 years it's DeepMythos... All AI converges towards progress anyways
Everyone keeps warning against the huge vulnerabilities as an excuse to not release the model, wouldn't you want to live in a world where every piece of code actually survives the model instead?
I'm not sure if you're worried that the comment leaks what you prompted, or that the comment is redundant and evident, and makes it obvious that it wasn't written by a human, and for both these issues the solution is just to proof-read your damn code
The context is if you ask for something like “X that looks awesome” it’ll then describe itself as looking awesome throughout your product in customer facing fashion ways.
Instead of “title” it’ll become “the awesome title”
I've read somewhere that even some janitors / lunch ladies became millionaires from their shares. Looking then at the great performance of some other stocks, I really wonder where we're headed
> So what do we do? First, recognize that this is a problem that cannot be solved on an individual level and requires collective action. We can advocate for these technologies to be regulated. We can adopt AI policies in our own projects that spell out acceptable and responsible uses. We can show up at city councils that pass sweetheart deals to bring in hyperscale data centers and push back.
Using the same cars analogy, things got better only because it finally became financially viable to manufacture and run electric vehicles.
Would running data centers on renewable energy make things better? Probably not much, I'm sure most are already looking into getting the cheapest energy sources anyways.
Regulation is probably coming though, once Google and Meta and Apple and Microsoft and every big corporation get their hands on as much data as humanly possible, be it through selling you Ray-Bans or by screenshotting your desktop every 10 seconds or by scanning all the images on your phone and sending the metadata to the cloud for "censorship and safety". For the past 5 years every big corporation has probably breached so many lines to acquire this data, and then at some point, they will lobby to make it harder for everyone else, as they have done so before.
I hate to sound defeatist, but there is genuinely very little we can do anymore. I'd love to hear comments on any actionable suggestions that can be done by any of us. Especially concerning this data breach issue which has never deterred the FAANG, worst case they'll pay a few million down the line from some class action lawsuits.
You only have 1 variable in your control, the time in-between follows. (I say this because there is no notification for "unfollowing" someone)
You need to represent 2 variables : the dot/dash to represent symbols, and the dit, the time in-between symbols.
If you want to do this you need some sort of 2nd action, a comment or a twitter like, that way we could represent the dot/dash with either action, and then space them out to time the silence.
Or you can use "Morse tap code" where two close knocks represent a dot, and if the gap between them is slightly longer it's a dash. That takes two knocks for one dot/dash but it works and is (was?) used in practice.
I think there will be a market for firms that aggressively market themselves as non-AI, and then as more people turn towards that human connection we'll go full circle
If you want human connection the legal system is not where you are going to find it, period.
I don't think there will be any such market for "non ai" law. If I'm involved with the legal system I just want out as quick as possible as cheap as possible.
Bad legal advice will keep you dealing with the legal system for much longer and at much greater cost. Something being cheap and quick upfront doesn't mean it will be cheap and quick by the end of the process.
Maybe, although I would be extremely hesitant to extrapolate from this one study and trust my legal life to an LLM. One thing that's worth noting, though, is that regardless of the quality of objective legal advice in the abstract, for a lot of smaller scale stuff the human connection actually is literally what is important. There are ambiguities in the law, which are not resolved deterministically but rather at the individual discretion of judges. Your lawyer, if they're any good at their job, knows the local judges and how they're likely to rule for given circumstances, which can influence their legal advice to you specifically.
The legals system is structurally based around manipulating text and its relations. It seems to me that the entire legal industry is the ideal use case for LLM's to take over.
Of course the legal system can gatekeep forever by design.
Nobody wants to pay their lawyers more than they have to. There will be a huge market for firms that can use AI to avoid charging clients for $1,000/hour junior associates.
