Rich people aren't going to find themselves needing to sleep under a bridge, so the law really only exists as a constraint on the poor. Duh. The flex that "well a rich guy couldn't do it either" is A) at best a myopic misunderstanding perpetuated by out of touch people and B) hopelessly naive, because anny punishment for the rich guy actually sleeping under a bridge is so laughably small it may as well not even exist. Hence, the whole bit of "a legal system to keep these accountable, but not for me".
Okay, you explained what Anatole France meant, which is probably helpful for those few who didn't get it from the quote itself. Perhaps now you can explain what on earth this has to do with Anthropic not wanting to let other for-profit businesses mooch off its investment of time, brainpower and money?
You explained what “rich and poor are equally forbidden from sleeping under bridges” means, but not what this has to do with the statement that one is free to do their own scraping and training, which I’m pretty sure is what kspacewalk was asking.
Off-topic, but I think this AI-generated post (probably just modified for clarity/language rather than full slop) could have used an additional prompt to dial down the combativeness ("overreacting") and reduce text length by 2x without losing any useful detail.
Parents ought to be held held responsible for how they care for their kids. This isn't just true of their use of social media and devices, but also when it comes to teaching them to look both ways when crossing the street; making sure they understand the concept of private parts, consent and personal space; making them understand the dangers of alcohol, and many other things.
Does any of that obviate the need for safe urban design, anti-CSAM and anti-molestation laws, or laws prohibiting the local dive from serving a cold one to my 11 year old? Will simple appeals for "parental responsibility" suffice as an argument for undoing those child safety systems we put in place, or will they be met with derisive dismissal? Why should your "solution" be treated any differently? In fact you offer none. Yours is the non-solution solution, the not-my-problem solution, the go-away solution. Not good enough on its own, sorry.
For 30 (60's to 90's) years we told parents "It's 10pm do you know where your kids are", with an AD, on TV. We came home to empty houses and go in with a key around our neck.
Parents are afraid to let their kids out of their site, and for those of us who have been pragmatic because we understand the data (and not the fear) they tend to look down on us.
Talk to any one who is Gen X and they will tell you that we basically got thrown out side all day (and had fun). Parents cant say "go outside and play" so kids end up getting handed devices... and they are going to play and explore and do the dumb things that gets them in trouble.
> those child safety systems we put in place
Except we have denormalized things that SHOULD be perfectly fine. And as fewer kids get to go outside unattended with friends, it pushes their peers to go "online" to socialize.
Maybe the government needs to run commercials "Its 10am, why isnt your child outside playing with the neighbor kids unsupervised"
As sibling comments point out, parents are already overly held responsible for how they care for their kids. To an absurd amount.
I have had CPS called on me by an overbearing school administrator. Have you had that happen to you? Let me tell you, it's not a fun experience.
Enough of this "blame the parents" mentality! Ironic given that the goal for all these platforms is growth at all costs. Where do you think "growth" comes from, after all? If you make being a parent so goddamn difficult that it's more rational to just not do it, guess what, poof goes your sweet, sweet growth.
So tired of this line of thinking. The parents are put into an impossible situation. Stuck between kids who by definition and by design will test the boundaries that they're given, and tech platforms that are propped up with not just trillions of dollars of valuation, but the societal expectation that you engage with them. Want your kids to compete in sports? Well, they need to have WhatsApp and Instagram to keep track of team events!
Give me a break. Equating controlling social media and devices to "look both ways when crossing the street" is disingenuous at best. There are no companies that make billions of dollars in advertising revenue telling your kids to jaywalk. But Facebook gladly weaponizes their algorithm to drive "engagement" - and, surprise, children with still-forming prefrontal cortices are drawn to content that reinforce their natural self-criticisms and doubts. So now my child, who has to be on Instagram to keep track of sports schedules, is also force fed toxic content because that's what a mechanical algorithm thinks is most "engaging" based on my derived psychological and demographic profile.
You want to talk about CSAM? X proudly proclaims that they have every right to produce deep-fake pornography with the faces of underage children. What action shall I, as an individual parent, take if my 15 year old girl's face is suddenly pasted onto sexually explicit video and widely shared thanks to xAI's actions? Shall I be held responsible for how I "let this happen" to my child?
You seem to imply in your reply that I disagree with you, hence necessitating a polemic style. I would have thought the last few sentences of my comment make it clear where I stand on simplistic appeals to "parental responsibility".
Why don't we start with a mechanism for user registration that does not involve a simple pinky-swear "over 13?" checkbox and then continue the conversation about further steps.
How would that hold anybody responsible? What did you have in mind with respect to parental accountability? Does anything other than the legal system actually have power to make changes when it comes to bad parents?
Gatekeeping is trivially turned off by those who won't footgun themselves by dragging literal garbage from the Internet into their system. It is a good feature for most macOS users. They only care about your verification woes a tiniest bit, if at all. They need a walled garden, Apple gives one to them, it's a product-market fit, while power users are given a reasonable off-ramp.
The other issues are more serious, especially macOS 25, but again, how much of that deeply affects the vast majority of actual paying customers who buy Macbooks? As long as Apple learned their lesson and will do another one of those bugfix OS releases they've done before, no long lasting harm done.
Using credit cards for age verification is certainly dumb, but age verification is coming and most people see the need for it. You can disagree that there is a need for it (entirely different discussion), but you must acknowledge the broad support for it at least.
We use a Lego phantom[0] to control for geometric distortions in a few of our MRI studies. The tolerances are so tight that it works really well. Especially important in multi-site studies.
This strike is a fuck-up. Could be a mistake, could be a crime attributable to a person somewhere in the middle-ish of the chain of command, or even at the very bottom. You need a pattern of such strikes to move the needle firmly into "intentional government-wide war crime" territory.
Last I heard 16 hospitals have been damaged and 7 are no longer able to operate. Is that a pattern yet? They are also explicitly targeting residences where they believe officials live with their families (which is also a war crime).
Even if you think they are simply wreckless, it is well-established that wrecklessness still constitutes war crimes
Israel has a (recent) history of bombing hospitals, and committing warcrimes and I believe they are also engaged with Iran. This attack on Iran is wrong from both parties and all targets are unacceptable, but do you have any articles or evidence that the U.S. damaged these hospitals?
> At least 13 hospitals and other health facilities have been hit during the US-Israel attacks on Iran, global health chiefs have said.The World Health Organization (WHO) said it was checking reports that four medics had been killed and 25 others injured.
> The Iranian Red Crescent chief said that at least 3,090 homes, 528 commercial centres, 13 medical facilities and nine Red Crescent centres have been hit in Israeli-US strikes. Officials reported damage to major medical facilities, including Khatam Hospital, Gandhi Hospital, and various rehabilitation and welfare centres.
> Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs claimed on Thursday that the US and Israeli strikes have targeted 33 civilian locations nationwide, including hospitals, schools, residential areas, the Tehran Grand Bazaar, and the historic Golestan Palace complex – a UNESCO World Heritage Site.
Why though? Do we really need a pattern of strikes or could we just hold the biggest military in the world to a slightly higher standard? Why equivocate away responsibility to 'oh it could have been private so and so who murdered 100+ school children. Shrug.'.
Shouldn't whistle-blowing be much easier in a more transactional work culture where everyone knows you can't count on the company and they'll fuck you over next Thursday on a whim of some consultant or an ambitious upper manager?
Anthropic paid a lot of money for a moat and want to guard it. It is not wrong, in any sense of the word, for them to do so.
reply