This chemical has been approved in Canada, the EU, and Japan for years.

This is a drug that has passed phase 3 clinical trials.

What do you mean “it won’t help”?

It most likely will help if you get pancreatic cancer. It might help if you get one of the other types of cancers with this mutation.

And it will likely lead to new treatments for some of the worst kinds of cancer.

> Same goes for the landmines, once placed.

Landmines can be dropped from the air by the thousands and many land mines can survive for decades. Placing a landmine anywhere is essentially the same as firing a bullet blindly through time. And no individual soldier has ever been held accountable for a landmine that killed a civilian years down the road.

Which doesn’t make what you said about drones any less awful. Just that landmines are already uniquely awful.

> Placing a landmine anywhere is essentially the same as firing a bullet blindly through time.

Beautifully said and truly clarifies how evil of a weapon they are.

With that said, are these drones paradoxically more ethical because their loiter time is dramatically shorter and therefore won’t harm civilians after the conflict is over?

But I think there is an extreme ethical boundary we are traversing by putting targeting and trigger-pulling in the hands of a robot. The ways this will later be abused by authoritarian regimes is just staggering. We are reducing the necessary footprint of a loyal junta and automating dictatorships with this technology. It’s very disturbing.

The same people that are held responsible when a kid steps on a mine.

This is the correct (and saddest) answer.

Yeah but a lot of the guardrails are pretty obviously to prevent competition not for safety.

Hmm. Maybe they are concerned about state actors trying to train equivalent models without the safeguards?

If a for profit company does a thing that could be motivated by profit or altruism, which of those 2 motivations do you think is most likely?

When they've repeatedly made decisions against their for profit nature, it changes the calculus a bit.

They haven't though. There's a long term plan here, and the goal is power and wealth. Short term moves that appear irrational turn out to be rational (from a greed perspective) when you factor in other considerations, like: Use their own AGI to create every software product on Earth and swallow the worlds economy. And we're kindly feeding their systems our codebases, IP and business decision-making so they can do exactly that.

Not a single thing Anthropic has done has been altruistic, and it never will be. It's all smoke and mirrors for the end goal.

If this was true they'd never have picked a fight with the DOW and they'd release Fable without safeguards.

How do you not recognize that the safeguards provide obvious benefits to the company?

Why invent new motives for Anthropic when their real motives are plain and obvious and have been confirmed time and time again by their behavior over the last few years? Their concern is their own power and wealth. Every other conceivable motive is secondary to that.

More like concerned about distillation.

Plenty of other countries have those things as well. And plenty of countries that have even more frequent political upheaval don’t have those things.

I don’t know that regular political violence is positively correlated with worker protections.

> I don’t know that regular political violence is positively correlated with worker protections

In fact, it's quite easy to find examples of political violence being used to reduce worker protections: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-union_violence_in_the_Uni...

I’m sure that fear of retaliation had some impact, but I’d say it pales in comparison to their fear of the optics of another Waco. Post Waco, favorable opinion of the FBI dropped from 70% to below 40%.

The person you are replying to is saying the PMs are using new phones on WiFi, not that the customers are.

Thank you.

Well... there is historical evidence that centrally planned dictatorships are not a very responsive form of government.

Now, corporations usually have the problem of competition, so if they aren't responsive (or at least responsive enough), they get out-competed by those that are. Is that enough to make them different from governments? Perhaps, but I don't know.

If you don't think there are competitions in dictatorships you are extremely sheltered. The competition in a dictatorship is whether you stay alive or not, just like in a corporation is whether you become homeless and die or keep a roof over your head.

That's just neoliberalism baby!