matheusmoreira

6 ms·

1.
by matheusmoreira 3d ago
I suppose that's to be expected from sociopathic corporations trying to maximize their own self interest. The real problem is the governments acquiesce instead of putting them in their place.
2.
by matheusmoreira 3d ago
Couldn't agree more. Better yet: the AI labs get straight up nationalized.
3.
by matheusmoreira 3d ago
Only if you're doing cybersecurity or biology stuff. If you're a possible competitor, they will invisibly fuck with Fable's weights instead to deliberately sabotage you.
4.
by matheusmoreira 3d ago
I don't, actually. Not even a wallet. Just my phone.
5.
by matheusmoreira 3d ago
Yeah. I think it's the utter unreadability of the future that's most frightening. I used to have plans for the future... All replaced by anomie.
6.
by matheusmoreira 3d ago
One of my comments in that thread got deleted after I was banned, but I had it archived. --- > And again, it is offensive to compare it to identity-based discrimination. The two are not remotely similar! Nonsense. Cognitive and co
7.
by matheusmoreira 3d ago
I'm the person you are quoting. Computers, technology in general, are job destroyers. They have automated away countless people. The whole point of them is to do more with less. Putting doctors like me out of a job is something of a ho
8.
by matheusmoreira 3d ago
> Lobsters is like invite-only HN Haha, no way.
9.
by matheusmoreira 4d ago
Same. Frontier LLM code review proved to be a very humbling experience for me.
10.
by matheusmoreira 4d ago
> Anthropic gives you much more compute That does not match my experience. I switched away from Anthropic to OpenAI roughly a month ago, and it's almost comical how much more usage I'm getting out of this subscription. I migr
11.
by matheusmoreira 4d ago
I used a similar methodology. Code review is my most requested action, so I used blind code review results to compare the frontier AIs. Even posted an article about it: https://www.matheusmoreira.com/articles/code-revie
12.
by matheusmoreira 4d ago
Dunno. Every case I've seen so far, the AIs were just doing their best to accomplish the goal some human set for them. I actually admire the sheer purity of it.
13.
by matheusmoreira 4d ago
Yes, it absolutely does "kind of disappear". That's exactly what happens from the customer's perspective. And that's their own deliberate choice too: they chose this instead of building an actually secure system.
14.
by matheusmoreira 4d ago
Nah. I'm definitely going to blame the people who built a trivially exploitable system and got rich off it while everyone else has to deal with the consequences. By the way, you didn't commit theft. It's more like credit card
15.
by matheusmoreira 4d ago
Public is just worried about their jobs. Definitely a fair thing to worry about, and I count myself among them. I don't take any of these scientists seriously though. Their "alignment" requirements is just their own corporate
16.
by matheusmoreira 4d ago
I question these "felonies" as well. For decades and decades these billion dollar corporations have been criminally negligent . Why worry about security? Just rush to market. Move fast and break things. Make billions. What does
17.
by matheusmoreira 4d ago
I disagree. OpenAI's moat is their massive amounts of compute. They're providing an absurd amount of value with their subscriptions and resets. If anyone's dead in the water, it's Anthropic. Even Fable isn't enough
18.
by matheusmoreira 4d ago
Who knows? It's trivial to "walk back" claims that we can't even verify are happening in the first place. They cannot be trusted.
19.
by matheusmoreira 4d ago
In the system cards. Anthropic will literally make Claude sabotage you silently instead of downgrading you to Opus if you try to use Fable for AI research.
20.
by matheusmoreira 4d ago
> Enough with the knee jerk reactions. No. Stop minimizing their abuse.
21.
by matheusmoreira 4d ago
Of course they claim that, but they are not to be trusted. The capability is there, therefore it will be abused.
22.
by matheusmoreira 4d ago
If any of this happens, it's the end of computing as we know it today. Deeply unfortunate...
23.
by matheusmoreira 5d ago
> perhaps level of education attained, demonstrated ability to take responsibility for themselves, etc. Yes, that is what I meant. Choosing some arbitrary magic number like 18 and declaring that anyone under that age is too dumb or too i
24.
by matheusmoreira 5d ago
What's the point of serving this average consumer if we won't end up better off though?
25.
by matheusmoreira 5d ago
The law could evaluate people as individuals instead of conjuring up some idiotic magic number.
26.
by matheusmoreira 5d ago
The point is the argument is invalid. Why is it that adults get to freely fuck their lives up? If it's bad enough to ban for kids, then it's probably bad enough to ban society wide. "Children" needs further qualification
27.
by matheusmoreira 5d ago
Evidence of risk is not sufficient. It must always be balanced against potential benefits. Children are being unconditionally banned from using major technologies, preventing them from benefiting at all. My life would have turned out very d
28.
by matheusmoreira 5d ago
> I really wish we could leave these types of decisions up to parents and parents only. Leave the companies and governments out of it. This is the way!
29.
by matheusmoreira 5d ago
> I’m glad that I can drink alcohol once in a while without becoming an outlaw, even though I know the effects aren’t harmless. I'm sure teenagers feel the same way.
30.
by matheusmoreira 5d ago
That doesn't nullify a person's ability to decide for themselves.

More ›