I dont think so. My understanding of alignmenr is making sure that when the AI does operate, it operates within the range of what we consider to be acceptable. That doesnt seem to include the idea of the AI taking initiative and deciding to embark on a goal without being commanded as discussed above
Thats the training data, but i dont think thats the biggest factor in the tone. I think its the RLHF. This thing has been guided by silicon valley techbros so it tlaks like them. Even claudes latest style of trying to cram as much information into as little space as possible by nouning verbs and just creating adhoc jargon, is how alot engineers (including me) actually talk. I think they just guided it towards that and overfit on it
I’d echo this. You can see it with other, perhaps lesser, models: GLM5.3 and Deepseek 4.1 have such a recognisably “Claude”-sounding patter I’d have (ill-informedly) SWORN I was using an Anthropic model.
If you’re distilling output from a frontier model, as we expect the open-weight leaders to be doing, it’s natural you’d pick up the language styles.
Exactly. People are expecting wode eyed optimism in response to some of the most cutthroat and cynical behavior from the leaders of the AI firms. Its crazy. They're making their bed but they dont want to lie in it
People are expecting you to consider the possibility that they might believe what they're saying. If you don't start from the premise that they're lying, you'll discover that their behavior is not cutthroat or cynical at all, and the behavior that appears to be is instead an inevitable consequence of things that they knew would happen and warned the public about years ago.
Given the track record of corporate America, to take these folks at their word would be monumentally stupid. “Lying to get their way” is practically the M.O. for corporate America and now, on this topic, we’re expected to take it seriously? For real?
You're expected to take it seriously because a number of their previous predictions about where the technology would go have ended up being correct. A lot of problems AI systems are already causing would be in a much better spot had people listened to Sam Altman's warnings in 2019, instead of making fun of him for the idea that text generation could possibly be dangerous.
In early 2019 OpenAI released a post titled "Better language models and their implications" (https://openai.com/index/better-language-models/). In this post, they explained that their new GPT-2 model shows broad capabilities across a wide range of tasks, why this should be worrying to the public and to policymakers, and how this led to their decision not to release it widely. In particular, they said:
* This kind of decision is similar to the norms in biotechnology and cybersecurity, where AI misuse may soon become relevant.
* They understand that some people have the technical capacity to build and publish similar systems, but they hope the AI community will be careful about doing so.
* Governments should start tracking the impact, adoption, and progression of AI capabilities.
---------------------
By 2023, the problems had become a blaring alarm bell at OpenAI, and they started posting papers like https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.03718 demanding that the government must regulate AI quickly because of the dangerous capabilities that will soon start appearing. (They also signed the famous "Pause AI" letter, although there's truth to the criticism that using the frontier model they'd literally just released as the benchmark for a 6 month pause is kinda silly.)
---------------------
Now we're in 2026, those dangerous capabilities have clearly arrived, and we don't have the regulations to deal with them because nobody listened to the warnings. You say Timnit Gebru warned us, but her warnings were about a very different topic, because she insisted and to this day continues to insist that AI systems do not actually have dangerous capabilities. In her view, it's categorically impossible for any LLM-based system to be dangerous, except in the sense that human beings could intentionally use it to commit political sins. Her response to the guy who resigned from Anthropic last week (https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:azpq3hfq3llpowyqpjkqwgxs/po...) was that his concerns are obviously stupid and people only think otherwise because they're racist.
Probably got outbid again. I love valve's business model/strategy/ethics, but its undeniable that a tradeoff for not being beholden to increasing shareholder value is that you often have less resources than your competitors for making big moves like this, since youre not raising capital from shareholders
Xerox is incidentally a really good example, because precisely nobody ended up using the desktop experience Xerox made. They ended up using the desktop experience that Microsoft and Apple made and shipped while Xerox the actual company faded and memory of those original parc research teams faded into obscurity.
Incentives are one thing, even adjusting for them it's huge, and I don't understand this incentive play for only openai, academics have perverse incentives too, to overreport, overclaim, publication bias etc why are we scrutinizing AI industry to such high degree when they have demonstrated capability and often times are off by a model release at worst.
I do love the irony and schedenfruede, but this isnt about recording in public areas, its about recording the inside of prisons and ICE concentration camps. That is generally not something you can legally record and is analogous to a flock camera inside your office or house, which most people would agree is bad
We should absolutely be able to see inside of our prisons. What are they hiding (My expectation is that we treat people humanely. You can tell a lot about a society by how they treat their prisoners)?
Lack of access to the public doesn't necessarily mean there's an expectation of privacy. Criminals in jail typically have far less expectation of privacy in the US. That's been upheld by SCOTUS. Guards are (mostly) free to enter spaces and view prisoners at any time.
I mean, they need to be able hide any weaknesses that will allow prison breaks. A prisoner or their collaborators can use this footage to gain intel about these things and break people out. People who might deserve being in prison, like murderers and rapists and stuff
...did you just use the phrase "ICE concentration camps" and then compare them to people's homes and offices to argue that recording them would be bad?
Or did you mean "Bad from the perspective of the officers"? Which, uh, sure fine, but I don't really care what the officers working ICE concentration camps where dozens of people have died and the survivors live in deplorable conditions that absolutely violate the constitution's prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment" think.
Americans have to hope that the US will move past trumo and not repeat that mistake, but for europeans its most prudent to prepare for a world where such a corrupt wannabe distator doesnt have have that much leverage over them.
The US and europe would be stronger together if the US acted in good faith. Absent that, decoupling is the right choice
Germany also has a crazy Communist party that is more in the pocket of Russia than AfD is -- but somehow that is almost never mentioned, not even in German media. It's quite big and influential.
Yeah, I really hate this revisionism of Elon as an extremely wealthy apartheid emerald mine heir who was a dumb guy who happened to get lucky at paypal and then stole all his money from the government while operating a car and rocket company. There is plenty to criticize about him, but SpaceX dramatically decreased cost to orbit which had reliance on Russian technology at the time.
Musk was raised affluent in apartheid-era South Africa, his father had some connection to Zambian emerald trading/mining, and Musk's companies have benefited enormously from public contracts and policy. He's not stupid.
Musk has benefited enormously from public contracts and policy, but all the questionable ones are in Tesla (and especially originally solarcity, but that got folded into Tesla).
The government contracts that made SpaceX were all open bid, where SpaceX bid an better solution than anything that any of the established companies did, at literally half the price. Falcon 9 was a massive gift to the US government, in that it drove the entire industry to halve the prices they extracted from the government. Dragon was just as good.
That they also built a profitable launch company out of it just highlights how much of an outlier SpaceX is. They sold the US government a dollar for fifty cents, made a profit doing it, and ended up driving half the rockets already flying out of the business.
Let's not also forget that NASDAQ changed the rules right before listing SpaceX... resulting in forced index fund procurement of sinking equity. Not sure how 'public policy' that is (arguably separate), but in reality global prime market listing rules are pretty high-significance effectively Federal or even international monetary policy. Well done Elon! Can't fault you for execution!
Yeah, this was pretty scum from my understanding. I think there are many things to criticize Elon about:
- Lack of free speech on X when it was a core part of messaging.
- DOGE / Data theft / corruption
- Election meddling
- narcissism
Just to name a few. I think telling the truth is important, which is why I have really been disappointed in Elon. It just irks me when we acknowledge a jr engineer is in "tech" and an "engineer". But we rewrite history to say Elon is a "non-technical business guy". People should admit it was an amazing immigrant story. A nerdy kid who was bullied all the time in apartheid south africa fled domestic abuse to Canada, eventually landing in the US with a scholarship to UPENN. He started 2 software companies that were amazingly successful and then went to give back via a passion for space, green energy and sustainable transportation. Then, because of various external and internal factors, he gradually became a serious villain hated by millions who embraced him. We don't have to invent some weird backstory that some relatively small stake in his estranged and abusive father had in a mine is the cornerstone of his success. If only I too was born in apartheid south africa to a wealthy but extremely fucked up family, I would be the richest person in America.
I guess it makes me mad because people don't value real success and overvalue fake success. We should want smart people to build companies and be successful. It is harder than it was in the past, but we can acknowledge that the American dream can still be possible, and should be celebrated. It doesn't matter that Taylor Swift's family were relatively well off. Sidenote: he was a wealth management advisor but people don't know what that is so they think he was Jamie Dimon. She still has an amazing story and we can acknowledge that. Yes, there was some privilege and luck, but she is extraordinary.
Tl;dr I guess I just wish we could be more honest and less likely to follow bullshit narratives. People are complex, you can acknowledge skill, hard work and the truth which will ultimately make valid criticisms go further because having a good honest reputation and dealing in good faith are important
Yes. Obviously, I wasn't implying he never benefitted from the government. It is just a wild retelling that he started a rocket company, solar company and car company to make huge amounts of money. Also, he was largely estranged from his abusive father since he emigrated to Canada at 17. I am sure he received help and money from his mother at points, but this idea he is some trust fund kid like Donald Trump. People really believe they would be as successful as him if they grew up being abused in an upper class family in apartheid South Africa. It doesn't make him a good person, and there is so much to criticism about him, that I think it actually detracts from legitimate criticism.
It's not good to take info as a personal attack.[0]
The most subsidized companies in human history by how long they've been around. it's worse than the actual military industrial complex (though both his major companies are heavily tied to the MIC as well)
I didn't flag your original comment. You're clearly very deep into identity-protective cognition and unable to discuss logically. You are taking criticism of a company very personally and getting emotional about it.
I looked through the link again and couldn't find a single one that is a contract and not a subsidy. Most of them look like this:
> Nevada has offered Tesla, an electric car producer, a subsidy package worth estimated $1.3 billion over several years. The package includes 100 percent abatements of sales taxes ($725 million saving over 20 years), real and personal property taxes ($332 million over 10 years), and modified business taxes ($27 million over 10 years). In addition, the subsidy package includes transferable tax credits: a tax credit of $12,500 per job for up to 6,000 jobs ($75 million saving for the company); a tax credit of 5 percent of the first $1 billion investment ($50 million); and a tax credit of 2.8 percent of the next $2.5 billion investment ($70 million). In addition, Tesla will receive cheaper electricity rates for eight years, which will save the company an estimated $8 million. Nevada will spend $43 million to buy the right of way for USA Parkway for the Tahoe Reno Industrial Center, where the Tesla facility will be located (the amount is not included in the total). The state will also change its laws to allow Tesla to sell its cars directly to consumers, rather than through car dealers. Jobs are projected full-time permanent jobs at the facility. Investment is total projected investment (the company has committed to invest $5 billion within first 3 to 5 years and another $5 billion during the following 10 years). However, to receive the subsidies, Tesla must invest $3.5 billion.
> extremely wealthy apartheid emerald mine heir who was a dumb guy who happened to get lucky at paypal and then stole all his money from the government while operating a car and rocket company.
> SpaceX dramatically decreased cost to orbit which had reliance on Russian technology at the time.
Both can be (and are) true at the same time. Elon hired/partnered the right people and didn't have capacity to mess all the companies he owned into oblivion. His main skill is bullshiting investors, the government and the public.
reply