allo frandi

1K posts

allo frandi

allo frandi

@errantp

Katılım Mayıs 2023
449 Takip Edilen31 Takipçiler
allo frandi
allo frandi@errantp·
@ryangrim Wow didn’t have you pegged as a Scott wiener supporter
English
0
0
14
216
s
s@0xb____·
@jmilldotdev @AlecMacGillis >single mom >two nannies >disabled son >California she was making about $25k net per month and spending $20k+
English
1
0
67
2.9K
Alec MacGillis
Alec MacGillis@AlecMacGillis·
This is pretty bleak.
Alec MacGillis tweet media
English
418
818
20.7K
4.1M
Daniel Goldline
Daniel Goldline@AdetokiO·
Now Messi fans will be claiming he is humble How can you call yourself an elite player and do this Calling the referee when a player is having a peaceful conversation with you This can never be my goat
English
817
4.2K
32.7K
755.7K
𝕄𝕒𝕥𝕖𝕠 ℂ𝕚𝕥𝕪
@AdetokiO Yes, under rules introduced by the International Football Association Board (IFAB) and FIFA, covering your mouth while talking to an opponent in a confrontational or aggressive manner is a punishable offense
𝕄𝕒𝕥𝕖𝕠 ℂ𝕚𝕥𝕪 tweet media
English
5
0
2
2K
Kyle 🌱
Kyle 🌱@KylePlantEmoji·
@EmilyGouldNYmag Ooh I got this. "The affection shown towards Jimothy is yet another example of infantilization of those with disabilities. Y'all will celebrate different bodies in animals but react to disabled humans with revulsion and mockery"
English
2
2
97
3.3K
Emily Gould
Emily Gould@EmilyGouldNYmag·
on Bluesky they already figured out a way that Jimothy is problematic
English
11
24
1.1K
66.3K
allo frandi
allo frandi@errantp·
@hevywetha @courtlandleer Also I think there are valid points here that are not just reduction to his employer
alexander green@alexframegreen

I like Dean Ball's writing and respect him, he's been a thoughtful voice, but I disagree with the logic in this piece really forcefully. Given that he's now one of the leading policy people at a trillion dollar frontier lab, I think these arguments warrant extra scrutiny. "Open-weight models are inherently decelerationist" This is simply not true. If OSS models are good and there is demand for them, this benefits the neoclouds at the expense of the labs' margins -- but margins aren't capex!! The GPUs still get bought to serve the tokens. My company is putting more inference through providers like @baseten and @FireworksAI_HQ and less through the labs lately, and we're using MORE tokens than before while delivering better value to our customers. How is this bearish for progress? Linux didn't decelerate computing -- it commoditized the OS layer and built the cloud, which is now the hyperscalers' most profitable business. Competition is good. If and when the labs deliver price-performant models, we will move more inference back to them. "AI communism" The implied chain (I think) is: open weights win -> model production isn't a viable business -> only states can fund frontier training -> state-provided AI -> communism. This strikes me as so fanciful it’s barely worth refuting, but: open ecosystems have historically been funded by commercial complements, not states: Linux by IBM and Google, Android, Chromium, Llama by Meta's ad business. Roads, GPS, and TCP/IP are public infrastructure and nobody calls them a dystopian hellscape. The chain only holds if you assume near-term AGI makes human intelligence irrelevant, a premise doing a lot of unstated work here. If you view AI as anything like normal technology, having it cheaper and more competition around producing it is strictly good for innovation and progress and the consumer and the economy. It's really that simple. regulatory FUD Dean frames this as a prediction, but he also calls it the administration's "best strategy" and sketches the playbook in some detail, including the observation that "it needn't be that well justified." Regulation by vague threat is how things work in banking and fintech, and it's precisely why those spaces are barren wastelands for innovation. Importing that model into AI and software generally would be disastrous.

English
0
0
2
85
Heavy Weather
Heavy Weather@hevywetha·
@errantp @courtlandleer not a coincidence, for this guy probably mostly a selection effect. Don't think group think is the main driver, especially for this guy, since it seems he's only been at openai for 2 weeks
English
2
0
3
85
Courtland Leer
Courtland Leer@courtlandleer·
ive noticed this pattern a lot more recently when someone feels they’re losing an argument they stop engaging with the ideas and instead start playing victim this kind of appeal to pity acts as a red herring against the topic at hand
Dean W. Ball@deanwball

I’m afraid to tell you that it is effectively impossible to do the kind of writing I used to do on this website, not because anyone at OpenAI censors me but because of the sheer volume of hostility I get for sharing my analysis as a frontier lab employee. I enjoyed writing quick takes on this website for one basic reason: I could get rapid feedback on my own ideation process in real time. Post the early version of the take here, see the criticism; then refine, sharpen, and repeat. Unfortunately now that feature of this site is gone, because the feedback I get is now almost exclusively colored by resentment at the fact that I work at a frontier lab or other forms of hatred for my employer. The feedback signal is essentially useless now, so writing on here is not fruitful for me anymore. Literally everything I write now is responded to with “of course you said that because .” I am truly just writing what I think and would have written anyway, but everyone reads what I say in the shrieking tone of “this is what openai thinks!!!!” (to be clear, my posts are not what openai thinks). This is an unpleasant and more importantly unproductive pattern for me. I anticipate that the shape of this account will change significantly as a result. I do not currently know how. It will not become a LinkedIn feed. It will change in some other way. It will no longer be a real-time accounting of my own thinking as it develops, since this is precisely the thing that seems impossible to do now. That will have to shift to private channels.

English
16
32
788
17.1K
allo frandi
allo frandi@errantp·
@hevywetha @courtlandleer You may be right, I just think it’s galling that he’s behaving as though anyone pointing out that his view benefits him materially is like a crazy tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist
English
0
0
0
21
allo frandi
allo frandi@errantp·
@hevywetha @courtlandleer Do you believe it’s just a crazy coincidence that these guys’ views consistently align with the interests of themselves and their employers?
English
1
0
7
95
Heavy Weather
Heavy Weather@hevywetha·
@courtlandleer maybe you could start engaging with the point he's making in the quote? It's probably true that the feedback isn't very useful if it all boils down to a reduction to his employer.
English
4
0
1
606
James Rosen-Birch ⚖️🕊️
I dunno man — criticism comes with the territory of writing in public, and prominence (directly or by affiliation) brings greater scrutiny if that kind of heat is enough to scare you off, maybe the kitchen isn’t for you
Dean W. Ball@deanwball

I’m afraid to tell you that it is effectively impossible to do the kind of writing I used to do on this website, not because anyone at OpenAI censors me but because of the sheer volume of hostility I get for sharing my analysis as a frontier lab employee. I enjoyed writing quick takes on this website for one basic reason: I could get rapid feedback on my own ideation process in real time. Post the early version of the take here, see the criticism; then refine, sharpen, and repeat. Unfortunately now that feature of this site is gone, because the feedback I get is now almost exclusively colored by resentment at the fact that I work at a frontier lab or other forms of hatred for my employer. The feedback signal is essentially useless now, so writing on here is not fruitful for me anymore. Literally everything I write now is responded to with “of course you said that because .” I am truly just writing what I think and would have written anyway, but everyone reads what I say in the shrieking tone of “this is what openai thinks!!!!” (to be clear, my posts are not what openai thinks). This is an unpleasant and more importantly unproductive pattern for me. I anticipate that the shape of this account will change significantly as a result. I do not currently know how. It will not become a LinkedIn feed. It will change in some other way. It will no longer be a real-time accounting of my own thinking as it develops, since this is precisely the thing that seems impossible to do now. That will have to shift to private channels.

English
8
3
181
5.4K
allo frandi
allo frandi@errantp·
@loomdoop Was gonna say this has to be bait, then saw his reply 😭😭😭
English
0
0
3
67
Y Disassembler
Y Disassembler@loomdoop·
This explains the culture of tech, and why single and double digit billionaires here have thin skins and inferiority complexes. A single digit billionaire is low class trash. That's one pitch deck. You can see this in the way they prostrate to Elon Musk. Even Zuck tier ones.
Deva Hazarika@devahaz

“Billionaire” is such a dumb term. You can be scraping by in SF with $1B and technically you can still call yourself a billionaire. But everyone agrees you’re not really rich here until $5B, need about $20B to be wealthy, and to really be generationally wealthy need $100B.

English
8
24
176
6.7K
Senator Scott Wiener
Senator Scott Wiener@Scott_Wiener·
I don’t take corporate PAC money. Yesterday, we found out my opponent does.  Our political system is awash with corporate money. Throughout my campaign, I’ve promised to vote to ban congressional stock trading, support overturning Citizens United, and refuse to take corporate PAC money.  My opponent has made the same promises. But new reporting from the @sfstandard shows she took thousands from a corporate PAC. Even worse, the PAC she took money from is infamous for being one of the largest funders of election deniers in Congress. When politicians lie to voters, it destroys trust in government. My opponent should return the money and apologize for trying to deceive San Franciscans.
Senator Scott Wiener tweet mediaSenator Scott Wiener tweet mediaSenator Scott Wiener tweet media
English
55
15
171
42.1K
Douglas Farrar
Douglas Farrar@DouglasLFarrar·
I handle comms for Lina Khan. I'm the one who declined this invitation in May because she's on maternity leave. Here's the receipt. And it wasn't a debate. The show's pitch was 'opposite sides finding common ground'
Douglas Farrar tweet media
English
60
468
8.8K
1M
allo frandi
allo frandi@errantp·
@Jason When I’m in a disingenuity competition and my opponent is jason
allo frandi tweet media
English
0
0
0
12
J Street
J Street@jstreetdotorg·
Today's vote marks a turning point in the Democratic Party's approach to U.S. policy toward Israel. J Street opposed the Massie amendment, as it was an overly broad and poorly drafted political stunt designed to divide Democrats rather than advance a responsible strategy for reshaping American policy and ending the conflict. Yet, the outcome of today's vote sends a strong message. Through statements and votes, the majority of House Democrats demonstrated that there is now broad agreement within the Democratic caucus that it is time for a fundamentally different American approach to the U.S.-Israel relationship and the region. That sentiment was echoed by Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who voted no when he said, ‘American policy in the Middle East must change.’ And it was picked up by Democratic Whip Katherine Clark, who voted yes and said, ‘We must change course.’ Today's vote reflects the emerging consensus in the Party – the debate will no longer be about whether U.S. policy should change, but rather how it must change. That new policy must reaffirm America's enduring commitment to Israel and its security while equally advancing the rights, freedom and self-determination of the Palestinian people. It must end the blank check support for Israeli policies that have long been the hallmark of U.S. strategy and instead be willing to use American leverage and incentives to drive changes in behavior that advance the interests of both Israelis and Palestinians. This is a moment that signifies an end to the era of paying lip service to the need to change the reality in the region. We welcome House Democratic leadership taking a stronger stance on using U.S. leverage to pressure the Israeli government to change course. Such an approach is the best way to achieve both a sovereign Palestinian state and a secure Israel at peace, integrated with all of its Arab neighbors – the 23-state solution. The old Washington consensus has come to an end. The work of building a new one has begun.
English
58
15
70
42.3K