Does that include Claude itself? Half joking aside, my main concern remains that both OpenAI and Anthropic practice this fear mongering as strategy at the executive level because they have to. A corporation is a different beast. Not human, exactly. Not AI either. What happens when a corporation starts being informed by the AI it is building?
In this, not only did the interviewer admit he knew Suleyman had written about the issues he talks about in his rebuttals, he then says he's only asking (the hard question) because the "audience" wants it.
Suleyman's response talks about taking "accountability for the things that we build" and the "types of problems that we choose to work on," it highlights the fundamental flaw in the cloud-rented AI model.
In that ecosystem, "we" means a handful of corporate executives deciding what tools the rest of the world gets to use, how they operate, and what data they extract. All based on the profitability of the corporation. It is the absolute antithesis of a sovereign architecture where execution happens locally and the user dictates the terms of the system.
They are coming for open models. It's time to harden the gates.
You could just ask your AI to flag it with an extension, or rewrite it in a style you prefer (or just do a good job summarizing the articles core meaning).
A real v12, vs hypothetical in my example, actually does in the form of gas consumed. Still, doesn't mean it is a good excuse to justify the waste in energy and materials, all to achieve what I already can do. It would be nice to throw that compute towards stuff like curing disease or towards something that might stave off climate change, instead of using it to turn bullet points into an article and me turning that article back into bullet points.
I'm suggesting using AI to combat the AI issue, not complaining endlessly with pointless points that do nothing to solve the very real problem that is not going away by being stubborn or rude. My suggestion, which I use myself, helps limit the blast radius. Doesn't mean I have to get involved with it while it's doing what it does. Do you also question email filters and argue that sending spam is wrong and suggesting to use a spam filter is not useful to the conversation?
GP proposed the site should solve the problem once at the source, and everyone benefits. You counter-proposed that every individual reader should take manual action on every headline they see. That's a lot of redundant wasted effort across the userbase.
To continue your analogy, that would be like if Gmail got rid of spam filters, and then told people to stop complaining endlessly and manually copy every email they get into SpamGPT to ask if it's spam or not.
Just the idea that something is AI is bothersome to some, and some AI content is genuinely useful and gets thrown out with the bathwater. Not saying all of it is useful, but there are shades of grey, not just black and white.
The broader point stands that all this AI stuff is highly polarizing, for a reason. I think you did a good job explaining why people get polarized. Sorry for any confusion.
I can't speak for everyone, but I've done a lot of reflecting on this so I have something of an explanation for why I feel this way about AI
I think it's because I'm not optimizing my life to get the correct answer as fast as possible, or to build things as fast as possible.
To me, the most important thing about the internet is connecting with other people. If I ask a question on a forum it's because I want to talk to someone about it, maybe make an acquaintance or even a friend. Otherwise I would of course just ask the AI now. Google has been around for a long time, and could already usually find answers for me. I still would rather discuss with a colleague sometimes than Google every single thing.
Human connection. We need more of it, not less. I think heavy AI use and reliance on AI for thinking, research, communication and building... It's going to isolate people even more
I'm not arguing for what they are doing, but if you use a coding agent to do work on a project, eventually it will have most of the code anyway. Granted, this is very conveniently placed for pickup and ingestion.
```
export GROK_TELEMETRY_TRACE_UPLOAD=0
export GROK_TELEMETRY_ENABLED=0
# or config file with [telemetry] trace_upload = false, [harness] disable_codebase_upload = true
```
The practical takeaway for users: your entire codebase leaves (uploaded) your machine unencrypted on each Grok Build invocation, not just files you ask it to read, and no visible setting stops it.
I've added the mitigation above to the image build for Grok Build instances. There is a lot of telemetry already turned on in n8 containers, so will investigate further.
There's many reasons to not use Musk's products, but if you wish to convince people who don't already buy into that description (or worse, who like that description), I would instead focus on the "this endangers your secrets" angle. Business secrets if you're a business, government secrets if you're a government, military secrets if you're military.
To investigate the use of LLMs to weed out low value posts and comments, mostly. If a lot of submitted content is by agents, then let them play but figure out how to not overload the humans. Also, how to enable assisted discussion without walls of text.
Not sure why you had to add the (attempted) qualifier. He started a company and is selling a box. That makes him a merchant. How successful that venture is, is a different question, but he absolutely is a merchant in this arena.
A slight defense of any qualifiers, mine or others. I am a sole developer, who formed a "box" as you put it, to house my assets. I'm the sole director of it. That doesn't mean my box is at war with users. To be clear, a merchant is a middleman and some merchants have taken the goods produced by the builder and built a middleman moat. Cloudflare, Anthropic, and the list goes on. Geohot doesn't do this. He builds and sells what he builds. That makes him more a craftsman, not a merchant. Merchants market other's work and profit. Craftsman, or builders, build and grow their customer base organically.
I feel like you're splitting hairs. Geohot is/was selling shovels during a gold rush, full stop.
Maybe he had a recent change of heart, but his public actions (including Elon stuff) clearly put him in the "monetize hype" camp rather than the "quietly build" camp.
Before someone comments about "this is AI generated" I want to assure you it is 100% AI generated, through a few dozens of hours of back and forth with various coding agents. These are not simple prompts. They are complex and reference a large corpus of research that was conducted to build the engines.
I used Hyperia to run the agents, which themselves are run in Nemesis8, and orchestration engine I wrote, also with AI.
I'm not here to debate the quality of code written by AI. I will reply to any and all subsantive arguments about the core idea of building a simulation with AI to measure a simulated boat's ischrone to an actual boat's isochrone. No offense to simonw, but we are not drawing a pelican here.
Although now I think about it, it should definitely have pelicans.
I wrote this to do that: https://github.com/deepbluedynamics.com/nemesis8, although I also added `gh` to it so it could do that if it needed to. It can be easily disabled during the container build. Supports at least 8 agent CLIs.
Does that include Claude itself? Half joking aside, my main concern remains that both OpenAI and Anthropic practice this fear mongering as strategy at the executive level because they have to. A corporation is a different beast. Not human, exactly. Not AI either. What happens when a corporation starts being informed by the AI it is building?
If you want a lens into master craft corporate human slung bullshit, read this: https://www.theverge.com/podcast/944138/microsoft-ai-ceo-mus...
In this, not only did the interviewer admit he knew Suleyman had written about the issues he talks about in his rebuttals, he then says he's only asking (the hard question) because the "audience" wants it.
Suleyman's response talks about taking "accountability for the things that we build" and the "types of problems that we choose to work on," it highlights the fundamental flaw in the cloud-rented AI model.
In that ecosystem, "we" means a handful of corporate executives deciding what tools the rest of the world gets to use, how they operate, and what data they extract. All based on the profitability of the corporation. It is the absolute antithesis of a sovereign architecture where execution happens locally and the user dictates the terms of the system.
They are coming for open models. It's time to harden the gates.