ConstableJelly

So many layers.

First two books in the series were “Fellowship of the King” and “The Two Trees” so…I’m not entirely convinced they were even very original stories…

I…don’t think that’s what the referenced paper was saying. First of all, Toner didn’t co-author the paper from her position as an OpenAI board member, but as a CSET director. Secondly, the paper didn’t intend to prescribe behaviors to private sector tech companies, but rather investigate “[how policymakers can] credibly reveal and assess intentions in the field of artificial intelligence” by exploring “costly signals…as a policy lever.”

The full quote:

By delaying the release of Claude until another company put out a similarly capable product, Anthropic was showing its willingness to avoid
exactly the kind of frantic corner-cutting that the release of ChatGPT appeared to spur. Anthropic achieved this goal by leveraging installment costs, or fixed costs that cannot be offset over time. In the framework of this study, Anthropic enhanced the credibility of its commitments to AI safety by holding its model back from early release and absorbing potential future revenue losses. The motivation in this case was not to recoup those losses by gaining a wider market share, but rather to promote industry norms and contribute to shared expectations around responsible AI development and deployment.

Anthropic is being used here as an example of “private sector signaling,” which could theoretically manifest in countless ways. Nothing in the text seems to indicate that OpenAI should have behaved exactly this same way, but the example is held as a successful contrast to OpenAI’s allegedly failed use of the GPT-4 system card as a signal of OpenAI’s commitment to safety.

To more fully understand how private sector actors can send costly signals, it is worth considering two examples of leading AI companies going beyond public statements to signal their commitment to develop AI responsibly: OpenAI’s publication of a “system card” alongside the launch of its GPT-4 model, and Anthropic’s decision to delay the release of its chatbot, Claude.

Honestly, the paper seems really interesting to an AI layman like me and a critically important subject to explore: empowering policymakers to make informed determinations about regulating a technology that almost everyone except the subject-matter experts themselves will *not fully understand.

We replaced our HP OfficeJet with a Brother this year. I don’t even know what we were thinking getting the HP 5 years ago or so, it was gross overkill for us. But of all the things it could do, it was most consistent with printing like shit and jamming paper. Part of the problem was that we just print too infrequently, but having to replace overpriced cartridges from HP didn’t help. You also have to install apps for wireless printing (or if there’s a workaround we didn’t bother with it).

The Brother is a color laser printer and it’s perfect for us. No apps needed, super quiet and hassle-free (there have been no paper jams or transmission errors), and the print quality is crisp as hell.

I had thought for years that ACA had eliminated these kinds of plans. I’m guessing I heard about that being included in one of those infamous earlier drafts before the free-market neo-liberals ripped it apart.

Google may be evil, but you can’t deny they still attract top talent.

Thanks for the response. If I’m understanding correctly, I too am completely flabbergasted that family physicians have worse work life balance than ER docs. That seems like the opposite of everything I’ve heard about practicing medicine (although I’m in the States, and get 90% of my info from Scrubs).

What action(s) would the government take to help the supply of family physicians? (disclaimer: I’m asking out of ignorance and curiosity. I solemnly swear I am not a conservative sea lion or provocateur).

A generation living too late to explore the Earth and too early to explore space–also doomed to live so long in the era between a fledgling, pre-corporatized internet and a free and open post-corporatized internet (which I consider inevitable, eventually, because a capitalist, enshittified internet can’t sustain indefinitely…right?).

I can’t see this as anything other than a losing scenario for just… sensibility and maturity in general. Neither DeSantis nor Hannity are serious people, and there’s simply no way this debate isn’t just chum for the rabid fanatics who enjoy their malevolent circus act.

Agreed. If undocumented workers are so critical in your community that your farms would collapse without them…why don’t they have a path to citizenship? We know the answer, of course, but that should be the problem we’re solving, not just permitting them to get driver’s licenses as a shoulder-shrugging pseudo-solution.