yeah, I have contemplated that as well and thought it would be an interesting project (since hacker news provides open data) to analyze it for signals of influence/manipulation and around which entities and topics they cluster.
Scam Altman and the company culture he shaped - that’s what you get when you put a shady marketing hype-guy in a position where an actual scientist (or at least benevolent human) is urgently needed.
No wonder he relies on hype and manipulating social media mainly, as all actual scientists have left openAI years ago when they found out who Altman really is and unfortunately unsuccessfully tried to remove him.
What oAi nowadays attracts is unfortunately not the prime talent like in the beginning that were in it for a better world, but semi-talented virtue-signaling people who are attracted by the compensation and name recognition and, as we have seen it quite a few of their recent "innovation" claims, don’t mind misinterpreting, mislabeling and outright copy/steal other people’s innovations and putting big IPO-associated oAi stickers on it without deserving any of it.
Thank you for speaking up, the political leadership indeed is a shame and it's important for citizens to speak out and let the world know that these blood-hungry bastards do not represent their citizens.
Because both T & N that have utter disrespect for law & order when it affects themselves. For example: both have to remain in political power as this immunity from law shields them from running trials that would probably end them in prison.
It's really sad seeing the international order, erected primarily by the US as a driving force after WW2, now being torn down by the current US administration to the detriment not only of global safety but also the US itself.
Giving up the best soft-power levers they had in an attempt to replace them with coarse, obvious and ineffective hard-power beat-sticks is not only foolish but history shows never works well or long term.
How is that "rules for thee and not for me" of they didn't sign up and didn't want the ICC to have any jurisdiction for unsigned states (including for other countries)
Edit: I guess you could point out Biden justifying Putin's warrant as a hypocrisy.
When has the US respected jurisdictions? The US for years have sent drones to foreign jurisdictions and executed people outside of any combat zone with no due process whatsoever. And according to news reports, some of the people killed were guilty by being in close physical proximity to a target. This is an affront to the rule of law, to say the least.
That aside, you know exactly what my point is. Just because there's a military conflict doesn't mean it's legal to kill anyone, anywhere, under any circumstances.
I don't know what the parent was thinking about, but the examples where the USA intervenes militarily in some country under the guise of justice while refusing any accountability for itself are many. The latest example to date is capturing Maduro because he's supposedly the leader of a drug gang to have him tried in a US court. So the concept of supranational justice and "assault on state sovereignty" is fine when it is in the interest of the USA.
Keep in mind that the US has never joined the ICC. China, Russia, India and, in fact, a large portion of the world (including the Arab world) aren't part of it.
The ICC, irrespective of its merits, represents a somewhat narrow point of view.
The first gulf war, the one that happened 4 years after the US government sold Iraq war helicopters very cheaply, and help them improve their chemical weapons to use against Iran. Two years after it gave Iraq targets for their brand new cyclosarin weapons, as well as political support to prevent Iraq from loosing.
The main issue is that market evolution will always surfaces the most cost-efficient entities within the ecosystem pressures.
That means designing the ecosystem pressures is crucial: things more meaningful than just pure capitalist private-profit logic must by enforced by thoughtful regulation or otherwise the ecosystem converges for private-profit of a small sliver of individuals (billionaires) to the detriment of all other ecosystem members (99% of the world population).
This holds for anything broader than pure private gain, may it be security, social fairness or ecological topics. Sole monetary-value optimization for private gain must be properly constrained or else it results in pure predatory capitalism that implodes society from within, may it be through leaky security, poisoned environments or social unrest.
Yeah this is an interesting argument with respect to why we keep burning carbon. For both software and systems security and rapid climate change, we know the solution. But we haven’t been able to sway the incentives and the system keeps churning out bad results.
Everybody including companies need their own models, especially considering that llm providers like openAi have no problem siphoning off your data and intelligence by inspecting metadata. and claiming any resulting value as their own.
Exactly, the enshitificaton of Apple proves that Greed can never be satisfied: even a trillion dollar company, with a fanatic consumer base (that is ironically paying premium $ for the best USER experience) and THE tightest ecosystem grip that yields huge App-Store tax revenues, even such a company is not 'satisfied' and still can't escape capitalist logic and the stock-market's "perpetual share value growth" force and has to cannibalize user experience until at some point it will either implode or somehow manages to balance the 'just shitty/good enough' tightrope over their walled-garden (hello Microsoft).
In any case, user experience and the original ethos the company was build around has been lost for a long time, and enshitification by greed seems the ultimate outcome for every company that is traded publicly or equity funded.
Exactly, not "even", these huge companies have to squeeze money out of everything. To keep their growth rates up, they have to make bigger and bigger swings.
Exits to where? I personally I dialed down my phone use to a minimum. I still use Iphone just because I see no better alternative for my sporadic use. I use few apps minimally and install almost nothing, i can't remember when I last visited the app store.
Well you took the exit to "using my phone less", which is good for you, bad for Apple (less service revenue, probably less frequent hardware sales from you)
reply