Anthropic is perfectly fine with the US government using Claude to commit war crimes. The US military has done hundreds of extra-judicial killings in the waters around South America over the last year and Anthropic hasn't had anything to say about that.
Use nuance and judgement, friend. Anthropic notably pushed back on completely autonomous no-human-in-the-loop drone killings and mass surveillance of the US population, where others like OpenAI scrambled to agree. Anthropic isn't perfect but that doesn't make them equally bad.
I didn't say or even imply that OpenAI and Anthropic are equally bad on this front. It's just not accurate to say Anthropic has issues with the US military using Claude to commit war crimes. They don't.
They literally do -- see above, where the red line they refused to cross involved fully autonomous kill bots (which would be a war crime), and for which they were branded a supply chain risk, thrown out of Pentagon contracts, and now enjoined from releasing their product.
You can not like that Claude was involved in the planning that led to the murder of a bunch of schoolgirls, but stop playing pretend.
It's just a fact that Claude has already been used to commit war crimes and Anthropic has had zero issue with it. I don't know what else there is to say about it.
Also, not that it really matters but building a fully autonomous kill bot is not actually a war crime.
Claude has been involved in the planning of a war crime, for sure. But 'Anthropic has had zero issue with it' is an unfounded assertion that you are making up.
Fielding a fully autonomous kill bot is absolutely a war crime under the IHL; specifically, there is no current universe under which a bot can reliably tell a combatant from a non-combatant, or a civilian target from a military target, or act in a proportional manner.
Just goes to show how desperate they are for compute. It's definitely a brand risk for them, but failing to keep the treadmill going is an existential risk.
Not entirely sure what your point is, but if you're implying that kids don't use "chat" to refer to any LLM (usually ChatGPT) then that's very wrong. It doesn't have anything to do with the usage of "chat" you described.
> CRSP indexes were also recently changed to better accommodate fast entry. New IPOs are eligible for CRSP's suite of indexes after five trading days, provided they pass the index's eligibility and investability screens. Previously, these screens included having at least 10% of shares qualifying as freely tradeable (known as float shares outstanding, or FSO). However, in April the methodology changed to allow stocks with either 10% FSO or approximately $3.3 billion in float-adjusted market capitalization to be eligible for index inclusion. The weighting of stocks in CRSP indexes is also based on free float, which should help address the investability challenges associated with thinly traded stocks.
Total market indexes and target date funds will include this and SpaceX on float adjusted basis I believe. The blast radius is much larger than funds that track the NASDAQ directly.
But isn't that what "total market" means? I don't see how if you invest in a total market fund you could declare "except for SpaceX, Anthropic and OpenAI". Why is it so bad for these accounts to be invested in these companies anyway? Seems pretty typical, i bet all kinds of companies are added to total market indexes each year.
Until recently companies that IPOed weren’t immediately added to the major indexes so there was a longer period for price discovery. This year that changed; so you have retirement funds that typically are more conservative acting as exit liquidity for these massive IPOs.
I would have less of an issue if the inclusion in major indexes was delayed 6-12months but we are looking at inclusion within like 5 days for some of these indexes.
The float will get bigger as you wait tho, since it's common for early investors to be locked for e.g. 6 months. You can argue it's better to smooth the entry as float gets unlocked rather than being front run by all the hedge funds in a single day on a massive capitalization.
They might disagree with that framing, but it does seem to be the majority of folks I see who are interested in them.
And I'm not saying that as a negative - my Framework 13 is my favorite laptop by a fairly wide margin, but it's clearly not at the hardware level of my work issued mac.
Apple produces fantastic hardware. It's a shame I can't stand them as a company, and that they cripple that hardware with their OS.
Prior to framework, I'd be buying something along the lines of a Dell XPS (developer edition for linux compatibility) because a mac is just a non-starter for me. But a mac hands-down the best hardware you can get for a personal laptop right now. Turns out that's not the main driver of what laptop I want.
> But a mac hands-down the best hardware you can get for a personal laptop right now
That's pretty much almost always been the case with Mac laptops though. Last Intel gen(s) aside for heat at the top end.
I find that Apple's overall build quality, display and touchpads have pretty much always been second to none... I like the keyboards on most Thinkpads, especially historically, more than Apple's though. That said, being able to run Linux proper has become a higher priority... I plan to continue using my M1 air until it dies or I can't stand it anymore... but I bought it with 16gb ram and a bigger drive, so it does what I need and then some.
I don't "work" on it, so that isn't a big deal and I can remote edit in VS Code to my desktop via wireguard+ssh wherever I am with internet access. That could be a differentiator, but my vision is so bad, I probably won't be able to get away with the maxed out display on any laptop eventually.
> That's pretty much almost always been the case with Mac laptops though
I think that's a Rosy take. I remember the macs from before the intel generation, and they were hardware garbage (there's a reason they finally gave up and went to intel)
Then the intel macs were nice looking exteriors with very lackluster internals.
So for a long time it genuinely was an overpriced laptop from a performance point of view.
I'd say it really wasn't until the M1 that Apple has been at the top on both sides of the hardware equation.
But they are there now. I'm waiting to see if we get some real competition opening up in that space (hopefully).
I guess it's hard for me to judge, I never really used Macs during the PowerPC era... I used the prior generation when I was at school sometimes, but not much. Mostly a PC user most of the time until well after the Intel transition.
But even if the performance wasn't great, they did have very good displays, and touchpads with good keyboards and better than most speakers. A lot of laptops didn't come close to that portion of the experience at least at the base pricing, which IMO matters. That physical level of interface is what has had me use Apple more than most other factors.
I'd say there's definitely a lot of competition from Apple... I'd even say the Neo is a surprisingly good option for a lot of people... too many compromises, imo, for anyone doing technical work though. But even a base model M1 Air is also pretty good value.
yeah, not disagreeing about the competition from apple. The Neo is the first machine from them that I really can't rag on at all for the "I browse the web and occasionally edit documents" user.
It's a solid machine at a surprisingly reasonable price from Apple, and too many vendors for Windows just release absolute garbage at that pricing tier.
Will I ever use it? Nope. Not a machine for me. But it's hard not to suggest for a non-technical user on a tight budget.
This is simultaneously incredibly condescending and hopelessly naive. Politicians understand perfectly well that a 1% wealth tax is not a small tax on wealthy individuals. That's the whole point. They are engaging in basic political rhetoric when they say things like "a mere 1% tax".
It's an attempt at muddying the waters. It's what he excels at. This is the same guy who called Sam Altman "a force of nature". That is his level of judgement.
If you genuinely can't imagine how anyone would object to somebody taking other people's creative output and distributing it for free against their wishes then you probably need to work on your imagination a little bit.
I'm very firmly opposed to holding back societal and technological progress based on people's egos so that certainly won't be one of my projects.
There's no real harm done, I recall seeing a couple of studies showing that piracy doesn't meaningfully affect sales. If the work was worth anything, it'll get paid back by the thankful reader who can afford to pay.
Only it's been shown time and time again that piracy does not destroy the profit motive.
As a personal anecdote, when I used to pirate things, I still bought things in the same category, ie: I would pirate movies and I still bought movies. I would pirate games and I still bought games.
I don't think it affected how much of each thing I purchased by much, but I don't really know.
Tested and proven to be true, really. You're just being weird about it.
My entire life has been one continuous run down the shit slide driven by "the profit motive".
“Go into yourself. Find out the reason that commands you to write; see whether it has spread its roots into the very depths of your heart; confess to yourself whether you would have to die if you were forbidden to write.
This most of all: ask yourself in the most silent hour of your night: must I write? Dig into yourself for a deep answer. And if this answer rings out in assent, if you meet this solemn question with a strong, simple “I must,” then build your life in accordance with this necessity [...very long quote...] A work of art is good if it has arisen out of necessity. That is the only way one can judge it.”
― Rainer Maria Rilke
Everyone else, please go touch grass, we have enough books about milking farms.
That's fine but not really relevant to my point. Saying you can't even imagine how people could have an issue with somebody taking other people's work and distributing it for free is pretty baffling.
No, there's no joke, you might have just misread the article (the 3,800 number is the number of internal GitHub repos the employee had downloaded on their personal computer / had access to on their own GitHub account)
