> Several commenters suggested the original essay was written by an LLM. They were half right. Both that essay and this one were written with Claude as a drafting partner. I directed the argument; the LLM helped with prose.
That’s all well and good, but I think he needs to take a closer look at some of the resulting prose and clarify a little more. Most of it is good, but there are some unclear statements, like this (right after his descriptions of “Camp A” and “Camp B”):
> Sutton says Camp B wins. My essay was filed under Camp A. But decision theory belongs to neither camp.
The second sentence quoted above doesn’t specify, but I’m pretty sure it means that it was filed under Camp A by the commenters, and incorrectly at that. If so, it would probably read better as:
> Sutton says Camp B wins. Commenters seemed to file my essay under Camp A, and then dismissed it. But that’s incorrect; decision theory belongs to neither camp.
Or something along those lines.
I honestly think this isn’t nit-picky feedback, either. This is a crucial set of sentences which appear to lay out the main point of the essay, so it’s vitally important that they be clear … who “filed” it as a particular camp, and was that correct or incorrect? It should be revised to convey that, as well as better connecting that to what incorrect conclusions might have been drawn from that. The information can be gleaned from the surrounding context of course, but I found that crucial sentence to throw off the flow what was otherwise a really great essay.
I think you have a fair point, but you bothered to give feedback for how this article could be more congruent as if a non-assisted writing process would not warrant similar feedback.
The number of blog sentences that end abruptly halfway through have drastically fallen since I applied AI to my writing process.
There is nuance beyond the feeling that you know the author because he either uses the em dash a lot, the word “comprehensive” a lot, uses bullet points with bold text a lot, or writes detailed summaries reiterating what was just said. I read a lot from that author and I could use a break.
> But, the pro-legalization folks would argue patently crazy things: it cures cancer, the smoke isn't bad for you at all, there are no downsides! etc.
Who seriously claimed that it “cures cancer”? There have been some claims that it helps alleviate nausea associated with chemotherapy, which is quite reasonable and will likely be proved out by evidence over time.
I've heard people who clearly had psychological issues claim things like this, but nobody actually credible. Problem is that people fall down rabbit holes that perpetually reinforce their own spiral.
The combination of actual drugs and grief and real underlying mental disorders is a powerful and scary mix.
Let’s not lose sight of the fact that he piggybacked on a large company’s name recognition by originally calling it “clawd”, clearly intending it to be confused with Claude. I have my doubts it would have gone anywhere without that.
I pretty much never even went there for technical topics at all, just funny memes and such, but one day recently I started seeing crazy AI hype stories getting posted, and sadly I made a huge mistake and I clicked on one once, and now it’s all I get.
Endless posts from subs like r/agi, r/singularity, as well as the various product specific subs (for Claude, OpenAI, etc). These aren’t even links to external articles, these are supposedly personal accounts of someone being blown away by what the latest release of this or that model or tool can do. Every single one of these posts boils down to some irritating “game over for software engineers” hype fest, sometimes with skeptical comments calling out the clearly AI-generated text and overblown claims, sometimes not. Usually comments pointing out flaws in whatever’s being hyped are just dismissed with a hand wave about how the flaw may have been true at one time, but the latest and greatest version has no such flaws and is truly miraculous, even if it’s just a minor update for that week. It’s always the same pattern.
The in-progress community notes are a shit show too.
I saw the video and saw someone trying to avoid the ICE agent, but also being EXTREMELY reckless about driving a huge SUV close to people with guns. Everyone is at fault here imo.
For reference since I'm going to assume good faith here, I recommend watching the full videos [1] from multiple angles since there's been multiple edits, cuts and potential changes done if you've seen it elsewhere or on social media. These are the unedited and unmodified videos.
I've seen them. The issue I think is that if you've got any political opinion before watching, you'll see something different. This thread is literally inside the comments about that!
If you're a total outsider and think both sides in the US sound like absolute crazy people, I would assume you can more easily see the crazy by everyone involved. Or maybe that's just another type of bias? I don't know...
To me, the shooting probably wasn't justified, I don't believe that guy genuinely feared for his life, but she definitely escalated the situation by plainly trying to avoid arrest and being reckless in the process. My take of both sides doing wrong (and neither wrong canceling out the other) has gotten everybody riled up at me today. Oh well, the best I can do is go off what I see, flawed as that is.
The ICE agents WANTED to use guns, they just put themselves in a position where a seemingly trivial action by the driver could be twisted to be perceived as enough of a threat to justify pulling a gun out and shooting them multiple times in the head. Murderers with a badge.
If you believe all that, which I assume the woman in the car did, why did she push the gas pedal? If the ICE agents wanted to shoot someone as you say, doesn't that logically also imply that the woman in the car wanted to be shot at? The logic goes both ways.
Of course, consequences matter, hopefully the ICE agent is prosecuted, fired, and jailed.
This feels like a narrative being pushed. Tech oligarchs these days are flexing by showing off how much they are able to bully government, and Altman wants to get in on the game by spinning things this way. I’m not convinced they really bent the rules for OpenAI any more than usual given they only employ a few hundred people.
I doubt OpenAI has to try very hard to convince state politicians, especially to the point of bullying. It's usually the complete opposite where they throw money at you to stay.
Imagine if California managed to scare away the hottest company in the world and all the tax revenue it brings...
It was a comment revealing his attitude towards what would soon become his customers in a globally-impactful business over which he has sole control. It’s more relevant than ever today.
In most cases those comments weren’t about the service they still running at 40. His comment was also him self-reporting that he shouldn’t be trusted with user data, when his whole business revolves around user data. If it was some off color joke in poor taste, I wouldn’t care so much.
He's an entirely different person now. There is no one under the age of 45 on the planet who would say "you know, yeah, I'm fundamentally the same person I was 22 years ago."
I'm not saying he's a better person. Just different. Judge him by what he says and does now, which is no better.
I feel that I fundamentally am the same person. More experienced, of course. Less naive and idealistic. But my sense of right and wrong? Pretty much the same.
You can be an asshole at 22 and still be an asshole at 45. You might be an asshole in different ways, but an asshole is still an asshole. As I'm often reminded of myself
The things Donald Trump says are sufficiently untethered from reality that whether a given statement is truth or lie could be used as a pseudorandom number generator, so I don't know if that statement counts for or against my claim.
I don't disagree with your point, but nothing is absolute. In this case, he's essentially done a tremendously good job of showing us since then that, no, we can't trust him. He's more than lived up to his words.
Wow. The 2019 novel “The Last Astronaut” hypothesized about a fictional interstellar object coming into the solar system, called “2I” in the novel for short, but back here in real life, we’re already up to 3I.
Agree, as someone who has spent way too much time studying the way motion picture film looks up close, this isn’t very realistic looking. It’s really just a form of dithering.
Capitalists always hate capitalism when it comes to employees getting paid what they are worth. If the market will bear it, he should embrace it and stop whining.
That’s all well and good, but I think he needs to take a closer look at some of the resulting prose and clarify a little more. Most of it is good, but there are some unclear statements, like this (right after his descriptions of “Camp A” and “Camp B”):
> Sutton says Camp B wins. My essay was filed under Camp A. But decision theory belongs to neither camp.
The second sentence quoted above doesn’t specify, but I’m pretty sure it means that it was filed under Camp A by the commenters, and incorrectly at that. If so, it would probably read better as:
> Sutton says Camp B wins. Commenters seemed to file my essay under Camp A, and then dismissed it. But that’s incorrect; decision theory belongs to neither camp.
Or something along those lines.
I honestly think this isn’t nit-picky feedback, either. This is a crucial set of sentences which appear to lay out the main point of the essay, so it’s vitally important that they be clear … who “filed” it as a particular camp, and was that correct or incorrect? It should be revised to convey that, as well as better connecting that to what incorrect conclusions might have been drawn from that. The information can be gleaned from the surrounding context of course, but I found that crucial sentence to throw off the flow what was otherwise a really great essay.
reply