How would society benefit if all the benefit collects to the top of the pyramid? Same old trickle down? The technology isn’t inherently bad but if it comes with massive unemployment and creates social unrest while a few at the top profit… That’s what is what makes me uncomfortable.
C'mon. You know what they meant. They are clearly saying that the EFF used to to focus on pretty specific, arguably more bipartisan ideas and initiatives and now it has switched to a much more broad strategy that has strayed from its original mission. Surely, you should be able to understand this pretty basic point.
I do not agree that your statements are implied by GP, I do not agree with the suggestion that the reason for that is my incapacity to understand, and I do not agree with the new statements that you are introducing here either.
"but EFF has changed from neutral rights-focused activism into questionable political activism. "
This is saying that they strayed from their original mission. They were focused on a narrow set of beliefs before, and then it changed to focusing on unrelated and more partisan politics.
An interesting thing about this era is that things which were bipartisan in the 2000s are now seen as partisan. Some examples of things that I remember as bipartisan in the 2000s which are now seen as left-leaning ideas: NATO membership, suffrage for women, freedom from state religion, the Forestry Service, national parks.
Its a bit silly to say that they are declining. For its specific niche (mass short form/viral content) there simply aren't any relevant competitors that even come close.
Maybe because there’s no critical and widely used software written by LLMs so far? Which says a lot about LLMs are failing to even approach the level of capabilities you would expect from all the hype? The goal has always been, even before LLMs, to find something smarter than our smarter humans. So far the success at that is really minuscule. Humans are still the benchmark, all things considered. Now they’re saying LLMs are going to be better than our best vulnerability researchers in a few months (literally what an Anthropic researcher said in a conference). Ok, that might happen. But the funny part is that the LLMs will definitely be the ones writing most of these vulnerabilities. So, to hedge against LLMs you must use LLMs. And that is gonna cost you more.
So today, most of the vulnerabilities being found by these tools are in code written by humans. Your hypothesis is that down the road, most of the vulnerabilities will be in code written by LLMs.
What seems more probable is that the same advances that LLMs are shipping to find vulnerabilities will end up baked into developer tooling. So you'll be writing code and using an LLM that knows how to write secure code.
Better security is a good thing, no a bad thing, regardless of which companies are more difficult to hack. Hemming and hawing over a clear and obvious good is silly.
That just means that you agree that there has been a war going on for 50 years which was the OPs point. You are agreeing with the person you responded to.
I am not sure why you are operating on such a weird definition of "war" that because 1 thing happened 50+ years ago that changes whats happening now.
Just look at whats happening now. Iran is shooting missiles at all sorts of countries all over the place. (not just the US or israel). Its clearly in a war with a lot of groups right now. It is a silly handwave to pretend like a war isn't going on now, because of something that happened 50 years ago.
Its clearly not unilateral, given how many other countries, that are not the US, have had missiles shot at them by Iran.
As a similar example Russia invaded Ukraine. There is a war going on between them and Ukraine. And when there is a war, countries attack each other. "Who started it" doesn't change the fact that a war is happening.
ok! So if someone uses an existing, checkpointed, open source model then the answer is yes the results are valid and it doesn't matter that the tests are public.
Geohotz's politics are fairly straightforward once you understand his background. Geohotz is the prodigy child who, at the age of ~16 accomplished amazing technical feats on his own.
And his politics are a derivative of Great Man Theory, and his positions on things like democracy follow from that. This idea, and those espoused by some of the VC/tech elite like Peter Theil are that singular hardworking genius individuals can change the world on their own, and everyone who not in this top 0.1% are borderline NPCs.
They do this both because of their genius/hardwork, and also because they are willing to break the rules that are set forth by this bottom 99.9%.
I'm starting to call this ideology Authoritarian techno-Libertarianism. Its a delibriately oxymoronic name that I use, because these "Great Men" are definitely trying to change the world. IE, they are trying to impose their goals and values on the world without getting the buyin of other people.
Thats the "authoritarian" part. And then the "libertarian" part is that they are going about this imposition of their will on the world by doing it all themselves, through their own hard work.
Think "Person invents a world changing technology, that some people thing is bad, and just releases it open source for anyone to use". AI models are a great example, in fact. Once that technology is out there the genie cannot be put back into the bottle and a ton of people are going to lose their jobs, ect.
A distain for democracy follows directly from things like this. You dont wait for people to vote to allow you to change the world by inventing something new. You just do and watch the results.
> also because they are willing to break the rules that are set forth by this bottom 99.9%[...] they are going about this imposition of their will on the world by doing it all themselves, through their own hard work.
I think all these wildly successful neo-feudalists get increasingly emboldened the more they get away with bigger and bigger social infractions.
It's also clear that they haven't experienced existed an environment with extreme inequality - it's not safe for anyone there! They think the NPC plebs will continue to follow "the rules" ad perpetuam without considering that it is a direct result of the stability they are actively undermining. They clearly don't read enough history.
What makes it “Libertarianism” still? To me it feels like they’re taking away freedom, control, and influence from everyone who is not them. Even the concentration of wealth is itself taking away everyone else’s places in the world.
Its libertarian because it is fundamentally about individuals acting on their own without going through the government, ect. It is an individualistic framework. Individuals going about achieving their goals, even through powerful corporations, falls squarely within what libertarians support.
Yes, you can make some philosophical point about how if corporations are powerful enough, how is that in any way different from governments.
But, powerful corporations controlling society, in some sort of fallout style or bioshock style dystopia clearly describes a libertarian dystopia, not a left leaning or even fascist dystopia.
> Basically all laws related to speech are abitrary.
True. This is a fair point. But the expected counter argument would be that the exact line isn't the issue instead it's the justification for the principle.
IE why is personalized algorithms more dangerous than general ones.
My answer (because I mostly agree with you) is that the difference is that personalized algorithms almost feel like brain hacking. And this brain hacking simply doesn't work at scale when applied to vague general algorithms.
> What happens when more and more people can't afford housing, kids, food, health insurance, etc.?
What about when the opposite of this all happens, society massively benefits, and unemployment rates stay about what they have always been?
Will people still be yelling about the doomsday of societial collapse that has failed to materialize every single time?
reply