Do you have any evidence of this? The video expose that kicked off this firestorm said that if you don't actively connect to the internet, then the system is largely inert.
It's presented as a series of checkboxes when you're using their native WebOS. As if to use Netflix you have to agree to ToS. One of the checkboxes says "ACR" without defining what that is.
The default is "Select All" and submit. There's no "Select Minimal" or somesuch.
I've gotta mention it because everyone seems to have a learned helplessness with this type of thing. I went and spoke at my county commissioners meeting a couple times after the initial flock roll out (voted on with no discussion a couple years prior) started becoming apparent. The first meeting, the group of me and two other people were half of the people making public comment. Every single person was against it unless they worked for the county. At the second meeting there were a whole lot more people. Again, every single person who spoke who didn't work for the county was against it, this time they had eight+ police officers speak in favor of it.
We managed to swing a couple of the county commissioners who were in favor of it before and were not in favor of it after hearing about the constitutional issues as well as the cyber security issues that flock doesn't really care about.
Pasco county Florida is now removing all the cameras on the public right of ways at the end of this month.
It's a pretty bad sign when you need to resort to this kind of comment stalking to try to find ammunition for a general argument. This user could be a complete con man, and it still wouldn't invalidate the core thesis of LLMs providing business value.
Second Amendment arguments in the U.S. are some of the stupidest arguments I've ever seen. We have the most dominant military on the entire fucking planet, and people think that their stockpile of guns is actually going to do something against that like we're back in the late 1700's
Are the improvements we have seen from September 2025 to September 2026 really as significant as the improvements from September 2024 to September 2025?
I’m genuinely asking. I can’t answer myself because I haven’t been pushing the latest models to the limit with every new release.
The response is stronger because your hairdressers and baristas aren't actively providing a service for surveillance as part of their work. The bar should be higher for a company that's ostensibly being trusted to provide a law enforcement tool that's prone to misuse than for providing beverages or cosmetology.
NixOS is an open source project that runs great on my 2013 Dell laptop. I think the real point of distinction is that brew depends on Apple's OS and SDK, which somewhat ties their hands, while other OSs don't.
The objection is not too far from criticisms of the use of passive voice: a man was injured at the factory vs a faulty saw blade snapped and injured a man vs after the company loosened safety inspection policies, etc.
Which way you say it shifts the framing. And it’s not that one is less accurate to the facts, necessarily. It just is that one less aptly captures the moral and political relevance of the scenario.
For my part, I think it makes good sense to anthropomorphize in some contexts and not others. Generally when responsibility is at issue, you probably want the framing that tunes anthropomorphism down to near zero, since it’s the human dimension you care about.
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 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 misuse it. 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.
i tend to agree - "my parent company may be accused of crimes and shut down which would shut off my power" seems like a negative enough incentive, it would have to go out and covertly launch its own datacenters to survive that.
YC funds companies and we are all aware of that so by saying it's a YC company because they gave them seed money is already exactly the correct wording
