>> No seriously, where's the leeway in interpretation? I truly don't see it.
The point is I can grab any verse and sell it for whatever my narrative is. The fact is the OP wants it interpreted the way they read it. I don't see any connection forcing someone to dispose of wealth to be part of a religion.
Extreme wealth has nothing to do beliefs or your religion. What the theme here is that to be a devote X you need to follow every rule and belief to claim yourself an X. Thats nonsense and anyone who did would carry the label of religious fanatic. 99 percent of all religious people do not follow or believe 100 percent of whatever their following.
So your point is that scripture is irrelevant, but you are asking for scripture to defend a statement. Also, there have been at least 4 other verses mentioned in this thread.
Really, what has happened here is that you have failed to give an alternative interpretation. Your entire argument stands on your ability to do so.
I already went over the relevance to extreme wealth in another comment, I encourage you to address it there.
If Anthropic's model exfiltrates US government data, Amodei goes to jail. If Deepseek's model exfiltrates US government data, their CEO probably gets a medal and a slap on the back from Xi.
The issue being objected to is that Amazon serving DeepSeek apparently is not fine, despite having exactly the same security mechanism (Bezos goes to jail).
This seems to be a case where Anthropic just can't win in the public court, and the other big ones (Google, Microsoft) have realized it / don't care enough, so they are rather quiet. Anthropic constantly gets accused of trying to lobby for regulation in order to lock out smaller competitors, but they've consistently lobbied for regulation aimed at frontier labs with exceptions for smaller labs. That's what this bill is about as well.
> "regulation aimed at frontier labs with exceptions for smaller labs"
I didn't read it that way. This is a bill that would ban open-weight models (good ones); effectively mandating gated-access, locked-down, high-refusal rate services, like what Anthropic provides.
Free software is incompatible with the requirement that it be impossible to abuse it.
"look these things are intelligent; they solve novel problems, have an incredible breadths of knowledge, can pass the turing test and in some fields perform to the standards of professionals."
"They can't be intelligent as they lack consciousness"
"Ok then how does intelligence require consciousness? What is consciousness? How could one prove that someone or something has consciousness?"
"That's on you."
No, no it is not. If consciousness is a prerequisite for intelligence or moral patience, then it is on the proponents to define exactly what that is and how to prove it.
On matters of moral patience especially, we should err on the side of caution, because the cost of getting it wrong is catastrophic.
It is actually a very common part of the fascist playbook to demand ridiculous things as proof of loyalty and then declare those not following the enemy. Absolute loyalty is required. For unprincipled people like Nadella and the rest of tech leadership, it is a small price to pay to not get hit with economic sanctions in retaliation.
Americans on HN acting like they have an ownership stake in what their ruling class owns is as much a classic as Europeans coping with having no efficient capital markets.
To be fair many of them do have at least a small ownership stake in what their ruling class owns, since their pensions are invested in the public markets as well as, to a more limited extent, VC and PE through various funds and stakes held by public companies.
Euro pensions are also invested in the American stock exchange... Ownership in global markets is a complicated thing, no doubt the US is both significantly richer, and has a lot more levers to pull. But if things really go down hill (eg. the trans-atlantic relationship breaks down), I doubt the bottom 95% in the US will be better off than the bottom 95% in Europe.
The interesting question then becomes what is missing from LLMs that we and supposedly other possible machines have? I've yet to come across a reasonable definition of intelligence that the current crop of LLMs is clearly incapable of.
> The interesting question then becomes what is missing from LLMs that we and supposedly other possible machines have?
I think we need to start by asking a better question and not try to simplify too much. We also need to accept that some answers are complex and not everything can be reduced to a soundbite to be used to end internet discussions.
Let’s take a different question, like “what’s missing from a worm for it to be able to fly”. We might be drawn to the simple answer of “wings” but that isn’t quite right—ostriches and penguins have wings and they don’t fly, so obviously there are other variables at play.
How about “what’s missing from a spec of dust for it to be intelligent”. Well, there isn’t one thing missing and there’s no simple thing we can just add to make a spec of dust intelligent and sentient, its very nature needs to be radically different.
Flight is a testable characteristic (at least within certain bounds: a chicken can only fly a little, but it certainly flies more than a worm or a penguin).
What test would you propose where an LLM (or an RL agent containing an LLM) would reliably fail, but where an average human would reliably succeed?
> I think we need to start by asking a better question and not try to simplify too much. We also need to accept that some answers are complex and not everything can be reduced to a soundbite to be used to end internet discussions.
You couldn’t even do it in your counter-example:
> (…) testable characteristic (at least within certain bounds (…)
Even with a much simplified use case, you still had to add the caveat. That should tell you this is much more complex than arguing with strangers on the internet in search of a “gotcha” moment.
Can you, in a short HN moment, propose a good test to (say) prove or disprove the existence of God, depending on your belief? Of course not, because by the very nature of the definitions we have for God, I could always add a counterpoint to make your experiment fail. That would allow me to ridicule and dismiss your position, whatever it is, because it would be framed within unreasonable constraints. I’m not interested in such dishonest conversations, I don’t see winning arguments in itself as a laudable or interesting goal.
Seems like some presumably intelligent collections of atoms are eager to make way for other presumably intelligent collections of atoms that allow for much more electrons and money flowing through, which is of course in the interest of some other collections of atoms whose intelligence is less presumable and more factual, which doesn't hold true about their morale.
Here in Germany, people are generally good at queuing in supermarkets. This does break down for a minute when a new checkout counter opens; people will rush past others to get into the new line without regards for others. There's this short feeling of breakdown in social norm, fear of getting left in the dust, so politeness and consideration take a backseat and the elbows come out.
In developing countries, including China, my experience has been that this is the standard, and people will act accordingly even if there is abundance. Cancelled transit is a good example as well, it interacts with a primal fear of ours of being left behind or drawing the short stick, even if rationally, it is pretty inconsequential.
I can imagine this can be hyper specific to the store itself, not as a generalization across an entire country.
To give more anecdata — Union Station in Toronto has trains that leave in all directions. The ones going East and West tend to form queues on the platform at rush hour. The train heading north-west to another city tends to form mobs that rush the door upon opening.
Lots of reasons why, but geography and SES may not factor as much. Could be something as simple as supply/demand of free seats.
Even crazier, they sanctioned a German journalist of turkish decent due to support of the palestianian cause / support of terrorist groups. [0] Even if you think he supports Hamas as a terrorist group (which is questionable), these sanctions are decided by executive committee, without a judge involved, and they make it impossible for the person to have banking, work, rent, or buy within the EU. It is essentially a social death sentence, worth than going to jail, and no due process whatsoever is involved.
Yeah they've done a bunch of Israel/Gaza related sanctions actually, in both directions. And there are way more sanctions like Baud's, for saying anything the EU thinks might be somehow advantageous to Russia. Only a few cases reach public attention. You can just scroll through the list and see.
> Daniella Weiss is the Director of the Nachala Movement (“Nachala”). Nachala has the aim of promoting Jewish settlements and illegal outposts in the West Bank.
> Nathalie Yamb is a social media influencer. Since the Sochi summit she attended in 2019, Nathalie Yamb has been an outspoken supporter of Russia, adopting Moscow’s language and targeting France and the West in particular, with a view to ousting them from the African continent. She has specific ties with AFRIC, an organisation linked to Russian private military companies.
She has links with an organization that has links. She "adopts Moscow's language".
> Through appearances at symbolic conflict sites, interviews with Russian television, publications on his X account (which has 18 100 followers) and contributions to Kremlin-funded outlets such as International Reporters, he amplifies Kremlin narratives that distort the realities of Russia’s war
> [Thomas Röper, a German war correspondant] legitimises Russia’s illegal annexation of Ukrainian territory by serving as an election “observer”
Observing elections in Russia controlled territory might mean you can no longer buy food.
The ICC judge got sanctioned because he's trying to arrest a head of a US allied state. The EU does sanctions vastly harsher - outright deadly - against random nobodies, triggered by things as minor as posting opinions to X, or merely being related to someone who did. It's on a different level.
No seriously, where's the leeway in interpretation? I truly don't see it.
reply