kacey's recent activity
-
Comment on Anthropic's IPO prospectus shows sweeping AI vision, surging costs in ~finance
-
Comment on Anthropic's IPO prospectus shows sweeping AI vision, surging costs in ~finance
kacey Link Parent(I'm not LukeZaz, but as a note, please consider whether it's doing better in this area because of its inherent capacity or because competent analyses of Enron are overrepresented in its dataset....(I'm not LukeZaz, but as a note, please consider whether it's doing better in this area because of its inherent capacity or because competent analyses of Enron are overrepresented in its dataset. LLMs are capable of reasoning, but they can apply a veneer of plausibility onto all of their output. Context: Gemini will happily hallucinate citations for building codes which don't exist, then when I pull up the document, it will happily note that it invented the citation and justified its response retroactively)
-
Comment on Timasomo 2026: Roll Call in ~creative.timasomo
kacey LinkI'm going to attempt to get a gaussian splat + composited model viewer set up in Godot, with some functionality to view and jump between POIs and/or inferred camera locations. This is going to...I'm going to attempt to get a gaussian splat + composited model viewer set up in Godot, with some functionality to view and jump between POIs and/or inferred camera locations.
This is going to date me, but I used to love this tool called Photosynth that Microsoft discontinued from way back in the day. I think it'd be really useful for letting people walk through museums, for example, that they're unlikely to ever see in person (especially if it can be done in VR w/WebXR). Could also be nice for documenting some sites that're being demolished or destroyed so that they can be preserved, in some way, for future generations (e.g. historic buildings, old growth forests slated for clear cutting) and also to preview what could be there (e.g. walking through proposed buildings, looking at them composited onto the landscape, previewing views from parks, etc.).
-
Comment on Interview: Firefox’s chief on why he hopes a redesign will help win users from Chrome in ~tech
kacey Link ParentThank you very much for posting that. It put into words how I feel about this dramatically better than I ever could've, and the fact that it's coming from an insider (with fifteen years of...Thank you very much for posting that. It put into words how I feel about this dramatically better than I ever could've, and the fact that it's coming from an insider (with fifteen years of hindsight!) helps preemptively defuse a lot of arguments that I typically see w.r.t. critique of execs in Mozilla Corporation.
-
Comment on Announcing the eighth annual Tildes' Make Something Month (Timasomo)! in ~tildes
kacey LinkI'm down; please add me to the list! I've skipped this for a few years, but I think I have the brain space this time around.I'm down; please add me to the list! I've skipped this for a few years, but I think I have the brain space this time around.
-
Comment on Trolley problem, again in ~humanities
kacey Link ParentAah, thank you! I couldn't find it on Alex's bluesky account, xcancel.com doesn't appear to exist anymore, and I figured that people who dislike Twitter/X would also be opposed to instagram....Aah, thank you! I couldn't find it on Alex's bluesky account, xcancel.com doesn't appear to exist anymore, and I figured that people who dislike Twitter/X would also be opposed to instagram. Missed the tumblr repost though, which would've been ideal.
-
Comment on Trolley problem, again in ~humanities
kacey LinkMostly an aside, but on the topic of the trolley problem, I liked this comic from a while back satirizing it a tad. I don't really have anything to add to the discussion, however 😅Mostly an aside, but on the topic of the trolley problem, I liked this comic from a while back satirizing it a tad. I don't really have anything to add to the discussion, however 😅
-
Comment on How SendCutSend is changing the way we build in ~tech
kacey Link ParentHah, same XD I feel like I have all the advantages atm, but I keep getting bottlenecked by self doubt, social anxiety, and an unsupport group, as it were. Baby steps, though! Ultimately the...Hah, same XD I feel like I have all the advantages atm, but I keep getting bottlenecked by self doubt, social anxiety, and an unsupport group, as it were. Baby steps, though! Ultimately the journey should be the goal anyhow; we're all grappling with challenges larger than ourselves these days, so every bit helps.
-
Comment on How SendCutSend is changing the way we build in ~tech
kacey Link ParentI'm certain that people with relevant hobbies are indeed aware of it! That's kinda the problem, though: I don't think that people outside of the bubble understand quite how much can be...I'm certain that people with relevant hobbies are indeed aware of it! That's kinda the problem, though: I don't think that people outside of the bubble understand quite how much can be accomplished by some person in their garage. Or, more to the point, that this many products and innovations can be spurred on by one company with a goal to simply help others make stuff.
More broadly, I guess I want the average person to understand our possible attainable futures as the push to reshore manufacturing drives on. Right now, the only visions I've seen promoted are (1) a return to 70s/80s era brutal assembly line work, and (2) Elon Musk presents The Tesla Robotic Gigafactory. There are so many other possibilities, though, and now's the time to choose which paths we want to explore.
-
Comment on How SendCutSend is changing the way we build in ~tech
kacey LinkThis is basically an ad for SendCutSend, but I've been watching the presenter for years, and they genuinely make his work -- building land speed record cars from scratch (among several other...This is basically an ad for SendCutSend, but I've been watching the presenter for years, and they genuinely make his work -- building land speed record cars from scratch (among several other automotive-related hobbies) -- feasible. I don't know how many people are into this niche, so I figured I'd share for more general visibility into what's possible these days.
-
How SendCutSend is changing the way we build
14 votes -
Comment on The doomsday cult inside OpenAI in ~tech
kacey (edited )Link ParentCool! It's totally fair to disagree and have different opinions; we all exist as individuals. ... did I? I'm just addressing the fact that an article was linked to me, and it makes a bad argument,...I don't believe this. I think people refute weak arguments because there are other people out there making that argument (often repeatedly), and it bugs them. I see it all the time, and I do it too.
Cool! It's totally fair to disagree and have different opinions; we all exist as individuals.
And a particular thing that bugs me is assuming motives without evidence. Like, you've made up a theory about why Tabarrok wrote the article I shared, and what is that based on? I don't know why he wrote either, but I'm not making claims.
... did I? I'm just addressing the fact that an article was linked to me, and it makes a bad argument, so I'm tossing it in the proverbial trash.
Maybe it's this line in particular?
So when an author shreds an unrelated or weak argument to demonstrate their superiority or whatnot
The "or whatnot" means I really don't give a flying crap about why he did what he did. I'm saying "to demonstrate their superiority" as an aside, because a particular thing that bugs me is authors punching at imagined foes instead of addressing real arguments. As I have tried very hard to explain, it reeks of intellectual dishonesty.
Maybe that's why you aren't trying very hard to get them right?
I deleted a response to this bothersome take. Can we please try not to assume things about each other? If you're not going to discuss the point at hand, and wish to start attacking my character directly, there's no point to further discussion. I am choosing not to play dirty and attack you, and would prefer that we keep the conversation civil.
(edit) I'm taking a break from this site for a bit; apologies but I won't be able to get back to this thread for a few days.
-
Comment on The doomsday cult inside OpenAI in ~tech
kacey Link Parentnp! It's text chat; this medium obliterates nuance and context. You and I? Your previous message had linked to Alex's article, presumably because it was relevant to the topic at hand. My take is...Yes, I didn't mean "you" in particular. Sorry about that!
np! It's text chat; this medium obliterates nuance and context.
"Only person in the room" doesn't seem right. Which room? Who do you imagine he's responding to?
You and I? Your previous message had linked to Alex's article, presumably because it was relevant to the topic at hand. My take is that it:
- isn't relevant (I'm not concerned with sincerity, only results),
- is rhetorically dishonest (see above comment),
- isn't referring to any position I'd brought up.
Re. 3, quoting specifically:
Yet when Dario Amodei says AI is dangerous, perhaps even an extinction risk, some people conclude he must be running a marketing campaign. That is stupid.
[...]
[A single regulated AI monopoly] is perfectly consistent with self-interest playing a role; it is not consistent with the bastardized theory that profit maximization is the only thing that matters or that “capture” is universal.^ I'm not arguing that "profit maximization is the only thing that matters". You aren't (afaict). Sacks isn't. Boyle isn't. So the hypothetical entity complaining about this isn't present in the conversation to defend themselves, hence "not being in the room".
(And such comments often get lots of upvotes, too!) There are people who write articles claiming this and they get shared approvingly. This position seems popular? And populist.
No comment on most of this, but fwiw I upvote comments and posts when they're (1) well reasoned, and (2) not aggressive (or regressive, in cases where people are championing the rights of bigots or whatnot). Which means I upvote a tonne of stuff I don't necessarily agree with, just that I appreciate was written.
For any argument you can think of, there are probably people online doing it badly. So, refuting the bad version of an argument isn't wrong, but there may be more to it. It's okay to not to care that much about refuting the bad version.
Hrm. Totally fine for that to be your perspective, but for context into mine: I genuinely consider others' perspectives, and will adopt well reasoned claims and statements as my own. As a result, I spend a tonne of time tearing apart arguments to thoroughly understand whether the axioms at their base are compatible with mine, and then I walk back along their lines of reasoning to determine whether their conclusions were arrived to within a similarly compatible logical framework. So when an author shreds an unrelated or weak argument to demonstrate their superiority or whatnot, it sends a strong signal that their perspective is based on weak theoretical foundations and is not worthy of further analysis. Otherwise they'd attack the strong argument and uncover a flaw in it.
So ... that's why I don't see a purpose in refuting a bad version of an argument. From my perspective, it wastes my time and muddies the discussion, so it's inherently in bad faith.
(er, to be clear, I don't think you're acting in bad faith; Alex was. You haven't been doing that DDoS with bad citations thing that people occasionally do, so I'm assuming you figured it was a good article)
Also, I'm a big believer in mixed motives.
Oh, yeah, agreed. I just assume that everyone else does too, so when one claims that someone is doing something because of 'X', that's a simplification to avoid listing the long tail of additional minor reasons that contributed to it. The aphorism of the "straw which broke the camel's back" indicates that people are aware that -- for example -- many smaller contributing factors can result in a single, strong reaction. These tech CEOs could very well care deeply about humanity, but when folks say that they're doing this for the money, it's because that's proportionately (in their view) a far, far stronger imperative to the CEOs.
Like, I don't enjoy cardio, but I'll go for a run every once in a blue moon. If I'm running 'cuz a rabid coyote is chasing me, sure, the jog is still a good workout, but that's nowhere near the primary reason I'm hauling ass. If someone were to ask me why I'm in an all out sprint, my response wouldn't be "just out for an evening stroll! Gotta close my circles", it'd be "AUGH RUN IT'S COMING RUUUN". To contrast, when chief submarine engineer Elon Musk states that all the AI firms should agree to suppress their regional competition and limit capital investment, I raise an eyebrow when he says it's for the good of all humanity. Sure it could be, but there's a rabid coyote-equivalent economic disruption on the horizon -- are we sure that that's not driving some (or most) of this behaviour? And if so, what can we project about his next steps as a result?
It seems wrong to dismiss an argument because some of the people who take that position have mixed motives?
So, I think pointing out financial incentives isn't wrong, but using it as a stick to dismiss arguments is.Kinda here nor there, but to clarify, may I ask if this is referring to the argument of "Gemini/Claude/ChatGPT have a 10% chance of ending civilization in 10 years"? If so, I think they're full of crap, but for reasons unrelated to the current discussion. Who knows, maybe they have motivated reasoning, but there are much better reasons to ignore their take.
My understanding is that this thread is discussing the video, which presents the take that the goal of all of this is to form a cartel in order to suppress competition in the US, cushioning share prices (public or otherwise) against any upcoming financial woes. So ... not dismissing an argument about morality or whatnot, just sidestepping it entirely because it hardly seems relevant.
-
Comment on The doomsday cult inside OpenAI in ~tech
kacey Link Parent110% agreed that it's a big if. I think the same sort of underestimation of non-American actors caught American companies off guard in nearly every other industry, and I see no reason to believe...110% agreed that it's a big if. I think the same sort of underestimation of non-American actors caught American companies off guard in nearly every other industry, and I see no reason to believe that that's not the case here as well. But it also seems like Anthropic's opinion, at least.
I definitely don't support any of this btw, it's just how I understand the state of affairs.
-
Comment on Where do we go from here? (Regarding AI) in ~tech
kacey Link ParentMuch appreciated, and thank you! I won't dig any further, but I do appreciate that anecdote. I hadn't considered backwards compatibility/long term support; I'll make a note of it as a challenge to...Much appreciated, and thank you! I won't dig any further, but I do appreciate that anecdote. I hadn't considered backwards compatibility/long term support; I'll make a note of it as a challenge to address early.
-
Comment on The doomsday cult inside OpenAI in ~tech
kacey Link ParentIn point form, my understanding is that the proposal is: Perform a coordinated slowdown to remove the possibility for other American AI firms from lapping them, Implicitly assume that Chinese...In point form, my understanding is that the proposal is:
- Perform a coordinated slowdown to remove the possibility for other American AI firms from lapping them,
- Implicitly assume that Chinese firms cannot surpass American firms, since all their gains have been made by distilling American models,
- Underline the necessity of this since otherwise these companies have a 10% chance of ending the world I guess.
I don't know if any of these CEOs have acknowledged the extent to which AI development has been fueling American GDP numbers, so they likely can't even mention it as an aside. That said, I try to avoid reading PR pieces in general, so their private musings on Twitter could've gone under my radar.
-
Comment on The doomsday cult inside OpenAI in ~tech
kacey Link ParentGotcha! To be clear, I'm not certain if your use of the "you" pronoun indicates that you think I'm personally invested in making some judgment on the character of these folks (as opposed to the...Gotcha! To be clear, I'm not certain if your use of the "you" pronoun indicates that you think I'm personally invested in making some judgment on the character of these folks (as opposed to the more awkward "one", which colloquially hardly seems used these days), so perhaps it already goes without being said again, but I do not care if these CEOs' concerns are genuine or not. The only thing which matters is predicting what their endgame is, which requires a behavioural model and some assumptions about goals. Genuinely, I could not care less about their true feelings on this subject. I reject any reframe of this discourse to be centered on the personal moral character of some weirdo tech dudes.
Sam Altman is the one making the moral argument that Sam Altman cares deeply about the future of humanity ("First, we could lose control of the future to AI. This is unacceptable; we are unapologetically on Team Humanity, and AI must always serve people.", Twitter). That's clearly not the case: there are many, many more effective ways to spend your money on improving humanity's average condition than blowing it on AI development. I'd accept that it's his hobby, but citing his deep and unshakeable faith in the value of humanity during this recent corporate policy move rings hollow; where have his morals been hiding until just this moment?
Unless he's an idiot, or something, which as has been beaten to death, he almost certainly isn't.
My actual argument -- if it's OK to circle back to it now -- is that an explanation with equal predictive power is that these CEOs really, really, really like money and are taking an action which they feel best preserves their companies' abilities to make more money in the future. In practice, in this scenario, this means attempting to do some shenanigans involving the US government in order to depress development of competing companies while providing an out for any upcoming potential reduction in progress due to cash flow constraints. I have about two billion pieces of evidence that Sam Altman really, really, really likes money, and as evidence for the "shenanigans" I cite the video and that tweet again.
Re. your article in the NY times covering Altman, apologies, since as noted I'm not terribly concerned with his moral character, that doesn't feel like required reading for this conversation. I can give it a once through if you feel that it's critical to understanding your position, however.
Right! Re. the Tabarrok article, what I was alluding to was that Alex is doing the following:
- Presents an indefensible position for his opponents (that the AI companies are pursuing textbook regulatory capture),
- Explains why that position is indefensible (the middle section about "Regulating Business by Independent Commission"),
- Concludes with a seemingly moderate position to sound reasonable ("That doesn’t prove that every rule Amodei favors is innocent of self-interest, an absurd proposition. I suspect that Amodei’s ideal may be something like a single regulated AI monopoly—safe and reasonable profitable, like the old AT&T. But that’s not the profit maximizing outcome.")
Very similar to the above issue with Sam Altman, the only person in the room citing regulatory capture and a scorched earth paperclip maximizing giga capitalist perspective is Alex Tabarrok. As noted by the topical video and (again) that linked tweet, we're discussing some generic and boring anti-competitive behaviour, not an extremely specific strategy which clearly cannot be accomplished on the timescales that're being discussed.
-
Comment on The doomsday cult inside OpenAI in ~tech
kacey Link ParentOh, uh ... I've definitely run across some stuff where he's really off-base, and this might be one of them for some folks. I think his financial analyses are normally pretty good, for context, but...I enjoy Boyle's videos when I've seen them surfaced.
Oh, uh ... I've definitely run across some stuff where he's really off-base, and this might be one of them for some folks. I think his financial analyses are normally pretty good, for context, but this is ... not that.
-
Comment on The doomsday cult inside OpenAI in ~tech
kacey Link ParentI'm curious what sort of evidence could ever be fielded that would shine a light on the nature of one's heart -- and for what purpose? Many stories can be spun in two (or more), equally truthful,...I'm curious what sort of evidence could ever be fielded that would shine a light on the nature of one's heart -- and for what purpose? Many stories can be spun in two (or more), equally truthful, directions. I truly do not care to understand the mind of a billionaire, so whether or not they "believe" something "sincerely" is neither here nor there. All that matters is predicting the course of the storm, not its take on AGI/ASI.
I'll dissect the article you linked tomorrow if that's OK, since it's playing some funny games with its rhetoric (it overstates an opponents position, defeats an unimportant detail of the opponent's argument, then presents a moderate position in response to their opponent's portrayed absurdity) and I'm a little too tired to explain how it's twisting reasoning in order to address a different argument while seeming to consider both sides.
I think the closest thing to a citation that the video references is David Sacks tweeting about the subject. He doesn't mention regulatory capture, just that (1) if these guys genuinely think that they're going to destroy the world, they can just stop, since (2) nothing the US government will stop the Chinese market anyways and thus we're really only talking about pacing US development of AI, and (3) positions it as forming a cartel rather than capturing a regulator. Though those two positions seem close-ish.
-
Comment on The doomsday cult inside OpenAI in ~tech
kacey LinkPatrick Boyle (a finance youtuber who apparently has a day job in finance as well) discusses the recent hubbub about AIs escaping, forming a botnet, taking over the internet, etc. etc. therefore...Patrick Boyle (a finance youtuber who apparently has a day job in finance as well) discusses the recent hubbub about AIs escaping, forming a botnet, taking over the internet, etc. etc. therefore the US government should regulate them into slowing down. Broadly, he's taking the cynical perspective that these flames are being fanned by execs attempting to position themselves better to profit from the situation, instead of taking their talking points at face value and assuming that four billionaires are pleading to the world to rein them in, out of a reverence for the human spirit that they recently discovered. Perhaps in a Grinch-esque Christmas stealing affair where their hearts grew several sizes overnight.
Full disclosure: I'm not a fan of Patrick Boyle, as he oversteps his knowledge areas a lot, but he's mostly summarizing articles written by other people in this case. It isn't a short video by any stretch of the imagination (~30 minutes), but it isn't dense enough to merit one's full attention, in case you're looking for something to leave on in the background.
Yo 👋 all I'd point out is that it's typically wise to start new conversations and compare output between them. Priming the LLM with previous responses can get you the result you'd like. Ultimately, a large part of their training process involves trying to figure out what responses get the best ratings from people: that can lead to the LLM being well trained at figuring out what you want, and then giving it to you.