Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | agnosticmantis's commentslogin

Governments need to stop contracting these companies and instead invest in public, fully open source models.

These companies are owned and operated by the darkest of dark triads our species has managed to evolve. I doubt Dario is self-aware enough to realize the hypocrisy in all of this safety theater.

Personally I don't even mind that they are anticompetitive and power-hungry (same as it ever was), but it's the cringe-worthy hypocrisy that grinds my gears. This new brand of self-righteous paternal savior overlords is just unbearable.


> we’ve implemented new interventions that limit Claude’s effectiveness for requests targeting frontier LLM development (for example, on building pretraining pipelines, distributed training infrastructure, or ML accelerator design)

Translation: we stole the entirety of human knowledge generated over millennia. You plebs though, don't you dare replicate or improve upon what we did using our product you pay for.

We know what's good for humanity and everyone else is the bad guy who can't be trusted with a tool.


Singularity for me but not for thee.

you will RENT the singularity

and you WILL enjoy it

Singularity as a Service

"we should put on hold the development of AI because the world is not ready for it"

Yeah... We need open models so we don't have that BS.


Would you elaborate why she's considered a legend?

She was certainly a victim and a refugee, of which we have many today, most being denied admission to the US. Are those all legends too?


She was in Jewish underground resistance after she escaped the ghetto, and that movement was responsible for saving a lot of lives. Sure, not a shockingly unique story in WWII, but she did better than these upward fail sons.

To paraphrase Margin Call, the pubic will soon be left holding the biggest bag of odorous Xcrement assembled in the history of IPOs.

We will all own half, just not the good half.


I haven't done it yet due to privacy concerns, but I would totally do it with a private local model that's as intelligent as current frontier models and is not sycophantic and perhaps is finetuned on the psychology literature.

My reasoning is that, if therapy is a well-understood science, then I trust a big finetuned LLM more than a run-of-the-mill human therapist. I will not be able to afford a Harvard trained psychologist.

If therapy is more of an art and needs the human touch and mojo, then again, then again I'm not going to be able to afford Sigmund Freud or Carl Jung.

The few times I've tried human therapists, my impression was that the questions and answers were fairly standardized, which I think LLMs can excel at. Not to mention I'm more at ease talking to silicon- than carbon-based creatures.


My experience with therapy has been that it's more of an art than a science. It's hard to say what good therapy even is - different people need different things. I would not want Freud or Jung to be my therapist.

I think your ideal AI therapist doesn't exist and may never exist. Given current models, I have a hard boundary where I will not rely on AIs for therapy or companionship. There are just too many stories of AI psychosis, and it's too easy to see myself becoming dependent on them.


LLMs don’t notice the frown or smile as you talk about sad memories or incidents. They don’t notice the underlying emotions that aren’t explicitly expressed through words. They don’t have the timing of when to ask questions that deepen your experience. They also don’t provide the regulated nervous system when you’re feeling dysregulated.

LLMs are basically glorified CBT machines, but they don’t have the Rogerian presence and therapeutic alliance that good therapists are able to provide, and are more important than the modalities that are used in sessions.


The problem is that all the frontier models tend to be more sycophantic when confronted with emotional support issues.

I believe sycophancy is a side effect of RLHF and whatever reward function it explicitly and implicitly optimizes.

> then again I'm not going to be able to afford Sigmund Freud or Carl Jung.

Just spin in place chanting “it was my mother’s fault” and you’ll get 99% of the effect.


It's a little both funny and awkward to see all these jokes about Freud while in my particular case "patient was traumatized by dysfunctional family, also patient has incestuous desires" is 100% correct.

Also, I suspect that in 5 to 10 years these ideas will go back to mainstream, especially considering the current fad of calling everyone "daddy" - that word is slowly moving from underground gay fetish into mainstream, and I assume that it didn't appear out of the blue.


> the current fad of calling everyone "daddy" - that word is slowly moving from underground gay fetish into mainstream, and I assume that it didn't appear out of the blue.

That's been in mainstream straight porn for at least twenty years.


username checks out

How would these compare to a MacBook Pro M5 in terms of performance and price?

> If AI is good enough that it can boost productivity by 20% then it is good for society in general because the gains will be redistributed (as it has always been)

This redistribution has never been as automatic and inevitable as you seem to assume.

> What better thing can happen to the curious ones amongst us to get an oracle that can answer every question?

Getting paid to answer said questions would be nice. The alternative is you'll have to work 14-hour shifts in a warehouse to be able to pay for ChatGPT 10.0 subscription with ads, but sure, it can answer your math problems and satiate your mathematical curiosity.


Both can be true: insiders bet on a sure thing, outsiders naively gamble, the house gets a cut no matter what.


> Ideas like a linear timeline progressing from A to B (rather than a cyclical one)

Seriously? So we’re either linear Christians or circular Hindus, and nothing else ever existed?

And nobody else believed in linear time?


HN Guidelines: Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: