Chris Minge

90 posts

Chris Minge

Chris Minge

@child_drowning

Katılım Kasım 2022
252 Takip Edilen24 Takipçiler
Chris Minge retweetledi
Leo Gao
Leo Gao@nabla_theta·
the contract snippet from the openai dow blog post is so obviously just "all lawful use" followed by a bunch of stuff that is not really operative except as window dressing. the referenced DoD Directive 3000.09 basically says the DoD gets to decide when autonomous weapons systems are deployable. as others have covered, there are a ton of mass domestic surveillance loopholes not covered by the 4A, national security act, FISA, etc.
English
13
58
885
164.3K
Chris Minge retweetledi
Dean W. Ball
Dean W. Ball@deanwball·
Nevermind. I had been optimistic that the President’s tweet signaled an off-ramp, but it doesn’t. Shame on the Department of War, shame on Pete Hegseth. A dark day in our country’s history.
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth@SecWar

This week, Anthropic delivered a master class in arrogance and betrayal as well as a textbook case of how not to do business with the United States Government or the Pentagon. Our position has never wavered and will never waver: the Department of War must have full, unrestricted access to Anthropic’s models for every LAWFUL purpose in defense of the Republic. Instead, @AnthropicAI and its CEO @DarioAmodei, have chosen duplicity. Cloaked in the sanctimonious rhetoric of “effective altruism,” they have attempted to strong-arm the United States military into submission - a cowardly act of corporate virtue-signaling that places Silicon Valley ideology above American lives. The Terms of Service of Anthropic’s defective altruism will never outweigh the safety, the readiness, or the lives of American troops on the battlefield. Their true objective is unmistakable: to seize veto power over the operational decisions of the United States military. That is unacceptable. As President Trump stated on Truth Social, the Commander-in-Chief and the American people alone will determine the destiny of our armed forces, not unelected tech executives. Anthropic’s stance is fundamentally incompatible with American principles. Their relationship with the United States Armed Forces and the Federal Government has therefore been permanently altered. In conjunction with the President's directive for the Federal Government to cease all use of Anthropic's technology, I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a Supply-Chain Risk to National Security. Effective immediately, no contractor, supplier, or partner that does business with the United States military may conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic. Anthropic will continue to provide the Department of War its services for a period of no more than six months to allow for a seamless transition to a better and more patriotic service. America’s warfighters will never be held hostage by the ideological whims of Big Tech. This decision is final.

English
73
184
2.6K
250.6K
Chris Minge retweetledi
Joey Politano 🏳️‍🌈
Joey Politano 🏳️‍🌈@JosephPolitano·
the current position of the US government is that NVIDIA should be allowed to sell chips directly to China but banned from using Claude, because the latter is a larger national security risk. that is the level of absolute insanity coming out of the White House & Pentagon nowadays
English
86
1.8K
11.1K
542.2K
Chris Minge retweetledi
Dean W. Ball
Dean W. Ball@deanwball·
Do you realize that DeepSeek is now treated much more kindly by the United States government than anthropic? Dramatically so
English
60
303
3K
343.2K
Chris Minge
Chris Minge@child_drowning·
@HumanHarlan @DarioAmodei It doesn't seem unreasonable that he thinks us possibly being in a pessimistic scenario warrants Anthropic's current strategy of safety research and advocacy, while staying on the frontier and competitive with other companies (while advocating for a slowdown if others agree).
English
1
0
0
61
Chris Minge
Chris Minge@child_drowning·
@HumanHarlan @DarioAmodei Dario said we should act under the assumption that we may be in a pessimistic scenario. He did not say (at least in your quote) that under the assumption we may be in a pessimistic scenario, much more significant action than present is warranted.
English
1
0
1
267
Dario Amodei
Dario Amodei@DarioAmodei·
The Adolescence of Technology: an essay on the risks posed by powerful AI to national security, economies and democracy—and how we can defend against them: darioamodei.com/essay/the-adol…
English
874
2.7K
15.4K
6.2M
Chris Minge
Chris Minge@child_drowning·
@tyler_m_john I'm a bit confused by the point. Presumably the Chinese companies had to catch up mostly via innovation, as the frontier labs keep innovations secret. Establishing that Chinese companies can innovate. Is the assumption that there's substantial trade secret leakage/spying?
English
1
0
0
36
Tyler John
Tyler John@tyler_m_john·
Not enough people appreciate Demis's point here. Chinese gen AI companies have only shown that they can catch up to models that already exist (easy) not advance the frontier (hard).
Tyler John tweet media
English
2
0
4
412
Chris Minge
Chris Minge@child_drowning·
@RichardHanania Definitely interesting. Although I think the phrasing in the survey makes the abundance message sound more Republican than how Klein and Thompson choose to present it. Would be curious to see the results if they wrote the blurb for the survey instead.
English
0
0
0
69
Richard Hanania
Richard Hanania@RichardHanania·
This is funny. If you give people an "abundance" message, 59% of Republican voters say they'd be more likely to vote for a candidate who talked like that, compared to 33% of Democrats. Democrat voters want populism instead. The abundance bros have a tough road ahead.
Richard Hanania tweet media
English
109
83
1.7K
107.5K
Chris Minge
Chris Minge@child_drowning·
@aidan_mclau @rgblong @georgejrjrjr I think 1 is the more helpful term usually, because 2 combines a science of consciousness thesis with a philosophy of consciousness thesis. Which is less conceptually clean.
English
0
0
1
102
Chris Minge
Chris Minge@child_drowning·
@aidan_mclau @rgblong @georgejrjrjr My understanding is that functionalism is used two ways 1 - two functionally identical systems always have identical experiences. 2 - two functionally identical systems always have identical experiences, by metaphysical necessity. On 1, pzombies and functionalism are compatible.
English
1
0
2
450
Chris Minge
Chris Minge@child_drowning·
@aidan_mclau Even Dennett would have granted that Chalmers had both.
English
0
0
0
37
Chris Minge
Chris Minge@child_drowning·
@aidan_mclau I don't think EA does rely on the consciousness stances you think it does. But I will respond to your second claim. Which do you think David Chalmers lacks? Philosophy credits, or a brain? Accusing him of lacking either is quite philosophically illiterate imo.
English
1
0
1
86
Chris Minge
Chris Minge@child_drowning·
@aidan_mclau @georgejrjrjr The non-physicalist functionalist holds that in our world, the conscious experience of two functionally identical systems is always identical. Yet they also hold that this identity relation isn't metaphysically necessary. It is a truth like the other laws of nature in our world.
English
0
0
2
54
Chris Minge
Chris Minge@child_drowning·
@aidan_mclau @georgejrjrjr 1 - Yeah I don't think that's true. If anything I think the more common view among EAs is that pzombies aren't possible. But I grant that I know EAs (including myself) who think they're possible. 2 - You can be a non-physicalist functionalist.
English
1
0
3
127
Chris Minge
Chris Minge@child_drowning·
@kitten_beloved Bullying is an incredibly unreasonable reaction here. I hope this will become apparent to you in a moment of clarity, and you will delete your post. Owning up to mistakes is something to aspire to.
English
1
0
1
142
Kitten 🐈
Kitten 🐈@kitten_beloved·
People are pointing out this is mean and not an argument, both these points are true The correct response to some things is bullying and ridicule I I could make a consequentialist argument with pretend numbers I multiply together to prove this to the same people
English
15
10
439
15.3K
Kitten 🐈
Kitten 🐈@kitten_beloved·
Checking in on the rationalists
Kitten 🐈 tweet mediaKitten 🐈 tweet mediaKitten 🐈 tweet media
English
95
54
1.7K
129.5K
Kitten 🐈
Kitten 🐈@kitten_beloved·
@LambdaContinuum @WForest1803 @Benthamsbulldog What I'm doing is not "debate" but it's certainly "engagement" The "argument" is "everyone can see what a facially idiotic worldview this is, let's all point and laugh" You might not like that treatment, which, fair! I wouldn't either!
English
1
0
2
129
Chris Minge
Chris Minge@child_drowning·
@2Philosophical_ Idk if it's an issue. If someone is exploring the implications of an incompatibilist view, it seems fine to center why they think we don't have free will in the title (even if that is disputed). Like a utilitarian book titled "The Welfare of People: How to decide what's right".
English
0
0
1
130
Chris Minge
Chris Minge@child_drowning·
@ilyasut If person A's motivation is to do whatever they would do if they shared person B's motivation, because they want to be behaviorally identical to a copy of B, you get the same results in all possible worlds.
English
0
0
0
50
Chris Minge
Chris Minge@child_drowning·
@ilyasut Basically yes. The counterexamples are fun to think about though. If person A's motivation is to behave like they share person B's motivation if and only if the sun doesn't spontaneously disappear, you get the same results in our world (distinguishing event physically impossible)
English
1
0
0
432
Ilya Sutskever
Ilya Sutskever@ilyasut·
Wrong motivation -> wrong results
English
39
90
733
155.4K