I have a Dwarflab DWARF 3 (also mentioned in the post) that I highly recommend. It’s one of those gadgets that ended up using more than expected when I bought it. I toss it in my luggage and I got to capture really nice sky pictures with little effort (Marfa TX, Patagonia, latest total solar eclipse in Spain)
I'm interested in your eclipse experience. I tried capturing totality with a seestar S50 back in the 2024 eclipse. What I found is that at the very moment of totality, I had not removed the solar filter fast enough, and the bloody thing lost lock on tracking the Sun. Rather than fiddling with the equipment, I immediately started to ignore the 'scope and just experienced the eclipse.
That was the right thing to do!
But removing the solar filter right at the moment of totality is such an edge case (both for the software and my wetware which was kind of overwhelmed) that I wonder how others dealt with it?
I was capturing video and removed the magnetic solar filter as quick and carefully as I could. It worked but didn’t love the results. Hard to not move the telescope a bit that causes realignment and then obviously it has to readjust exposure that takes a moment. Same when putting it back after totality. I’m also looking for advice. We have another chance next year in Spain!
Yes indeed! Spain, next year! (And Australia, the year after that! ;-) )
I'm also wondering about the feasibility of taking these gizmos on airplanes, what with the Lithium battery packs, etc.
What we really need (for some definition of need) is a robot-filter-remover, timed to deal with the two critical times (first and last instant of totality; 2nd and 3rd contacts from memory). Anybody out there interested in building something like that? It would be purely a passion project, because it could only be used a few times a decade...
I’ve flown with it a handful of times without issue. Both in cabin luggage and checked in but I guess I’m risking it in the latter.
Not sure how a robot filter remover would work on the DWARF 3 that is reliable and works around loss of alignment and the exposure adjustment. I would love to find a solution for next year. Also wonder how can one test it out beforehand. I don’t want to burn the sensor ha ha
I believe so. This is not a model that generates pixels frame by frame from user input like genie 3. Instead, there’s an actual 3D scene / structure generated (point cloud, 3dgs) from the input images.
“It generates both image frames from novel views and explicit 3D outputs”
Model can indeed generate novel views but I don’t think in real time (I could be wrong). If you want to navigate a space in real time as user above was asking gotta rely on the 3D output and the explicit representation will provide continuity. User likely was referring to the limitations we’ve seen on video-style world models like genie and precursors.
People were already wearing watches along smartphones. Smartwatches didn’t need a new user habit formation.
You can definitely create new habits (like people wearing ear buds for hours a day) but need a strong thesis and cost-benefit analysis that is net positive when considering alternatives.
That's because Microsoft understood taste as aesthetic - "we can put it in a pretty box", rather than ethic - fundamental to the process of making the product.
Most of their endless UI/UX fails are organisational in nature, no amount of design can create beauty from an org structure which generated stupid requirements.
And nobody there cared enough or had enough power to force the org into a shape compatible with Apple-level design outcomes.
Microsoft was superior in both in the windows 95-2000 era, and with Metro (on phone, on desktop it was half-assed). The problem was when they started to try matching Apple, instead of staying true to the core of their own aesthetics.
Both the Fisher-Price XP style which was bot zeitgeist, and an attempt to answer for the skeumorphic tragedy apple was pursuing, and the recent floats, spacings, central taskbar mimichking the dock, etc...
I'm not really convinced Metro was better than anything Apple at the time, even though it was refreshing and interesting. Was it actually easier to use? I didn't really find that nor see it with others.
I used Windows Phone, and it was great, minimal, intuitive, and prodcutive for most usecases I had (email, texting, calls, maps/navigation, banking, listening to music, light productivity, taxi). It did not fit the gimmicky ad ridden hellscape we live in now, I'm not sure how it got so far in Microsoft. Possibly from some old memories of living of selling products instead of creating addictions and selling data of the addicts.
Version 7 and 8 were great UX-wise, I have mixed memories about 10, mostly performance regressions bugged me, but was still faster than most non-flagship androids of the time... yet sometimes it felt sluggish to WP7 on potato hardware. The typography based UI was both fast and very readable and focused for well thought out apps. The standardized navigation buttons (on android button order may vary be vendor/model), and the clear gesture based navigation instead of hidden intearctions everywhere (long press, 3d press, app switching gestures etc), but using gestures for in-app navigaton were all easy to understand and grasp even by the elderly.
It was readable, well organized, nobullshit, but that is not what the masses crave. Metro was like how a "dumb smartphone" should be, in my opinion.
On desktop ot didn't work well. The live tiles were still a good idea, and if the taskbar supported them, it might have been a good idea (or not, was not tried, but could have be a bit like the old NeXT style refined, not stagnated and skeumorphized like on the mac).
Microsoft's taste was "good enough". They lost because of an app ecosystem, and because of Apple's brand power, the same way beautiful Chinese shoes will lose to Nike.
Funny you mention Apple because they are proof that taste can be king. Yeah they also kidnap their users into their ecosystem and make smart business decisions, but what really differentiates them is taste. And Microsoft is sort of the counterpoint. There's more than one way to succeed I guess.
It's not that the machines were ugly or badly designed (albeit not as good as the 80s heyday), but they were unable to compete on price/performance and OS tech stack, and that in turn was making them uncompetitive in application support, which would likely have killed them.
It's an interesting alt history - who would have won with no Apple around? I reckon we'd all own a lot more Sony and Nokia gear, it's possible the Cambrian explosion of weird featurephone form factors would have carried on a lot longer, perhaps the black rectangle form factor would never have won out.
Because let's admit it, later it was a taste of one guy who got another "chance" or the company got a "chance" to be lead by him. Now as he is gone the company still carries that taste legacy with better or worse results.
Nokia was able to match and surpass Apple in taste on all fronts with their N9 phone and MeeGo OS. So it is possible, but how to do it I couldn't tell, since all large organizations are saturated in corruption.
How was it a shit show? I’m genuinely curious. I attended 5 games (Atlanta, LA and Dallas) and was a fantastic experience minus the process to get tickets.
Not OP, but I would guess: "hydration breaks" to inject commercials, half-time shows that felt alien to much of the core audience, and various rule-bending shenanigans (Ronaldo, Balogun).
Hydration breaks a tad weird. Half time shows were pretty subtle, didn’t change the length of the break except for the final. There’s no soccer competition without someone complaining about refereeing. Def always things to improve but I had fun, all people around me seemed to have fun. I flew in an out and always was either public transportation or uefa provided shuttles… It was really well run. Not something you can call a “shit show”
Oh boy, how could I forget about the Iranian team, and the other players/referees/staff that were rejected or stuck at the airport for hours ? It was worse than a sh-t show actually.
> There’s no soccer competition without someone complaining about refereeing.
Yeah, but most of them go without president calling Infantino to change the referee verdict. All the while the president says "I dont even know the game".
> It was really well run. Not something you can call a “shit show”
I can. Oh and not allowing referee in due to his race and mistreating teams due to politics.
Soccer is a legitimate name for the sport. Football is properly the name of a whole group of sports OR in a local context the locally most popular type of football.
It's very weird for one type of football to try to claim the name all for itself globally.
Lots of people call it that. The Australian national team are called the Socceroos. The best, most authoritative magazine about the sport is called "World Soccer", published in the UK, where the name soccer originated. Even if the name soccer was used only in the USA, it would be a legitimate name. Different cultures use different names for things.
An argument I've heard is that since hydration breaks can affect the game, if you are going to have them they should be mandatory and at the same time in all games in a tournament rather than doing them like they did when they were originally introduced in 2014. Then they were only done in games when the conditions on the field got dangerous.
football games can have "momentum". An extra break allows for a breather and a tactical intervention from the coach. That also why we saw keepers sitting down (faking injury) in the Premier league last season.
Anyway, a hydration break while it's raining is a bit of a tell it has nothing to do with the needs of the players.
Telling of what? I imagine if you're running around like eg Ronaldo would be during a game, it doesn't matter how air conditioned the space is, he'd still need to hydrate, on account of all the running that happens. I'm no football expert, but I'm lead to believe that does happen during matches.
I think your attitude, which is all too common, is that we should do things according to the "footballing nations" without any other consideration for the rest of the world. North America is part of the world.
The US itself is far and away the world's biggest sporting nation, and many there see football's informality and cynicism as antiquated and, honestly, embarrassing. The world outside of the US wants to protect "their" game, though it's not theirs to begin with, ignoring the existing, systematic issues with it, even making contrived arguments about the word "soccer" itself.
FIFA's shenanigans off-the-field were a problem, but they're not unique to the World Cup nor its location. I'd argue the last Copa America and Cup of Nations had worse issues with officiating/corruption.
I'm American, so I'm not sure who your comment is for. Anti-Americanism isn't a "gotcha" to me. If anything, it's confirmation of the persistent asymmetry in these discussions.
Football (or basketball, if you're Lithuanian) is a massive cultural institution in many parts of the world. The difference is that sports—just sports—are the institution in America. We could look at revenues, but that's far too easy. Look at the whole picture. Look at youth participation, women's sports, college sports. It's not comparable anywhere else.
For football specifically, the current situation is that a handful of European countries control the best leagues and consistently have the best international squads. This isn't changing anytime soon. The game is already owned by a group of elite countries—almost exclusively in Europe, benefitting from geography, mutual competition, and visa gatekeeping—and one confederation (UEFA).
The fact that the game shouldn't be "ruined" (or latent anti-Americanism) suggests you're okay with this situation. You didn't comment on rule enforcement or cynical play either, but I assume you're okay with those things or take them for granted.
Americans see football through the lens of other sports, because we are a sporting culture, and football is one of many. All the "American" sports have their problems too, but we don't pretend they don't for phony reasons. But we also have choices and exercise those choices. Footballing nations, I get the impression, see all sports through the lens of football. I often wonder whether fans in footballing countries genuinely like their sport for what it is or whether it's just a narcissistic cultural inheritance.
> The difference is that sports—just sports—are the institution in America.
What does this mean?
I'm really trying to understand what you're saying but I don't get it. Are you saying that other countries don't have a sport culture like the US? What makes you think that?
Again, if you don't want things ruined, then that implies that you don't think football, in its current state, is not already ruined. This isn't a position you've earned, you're just assuming it.
And it's awkward to defend because, as I've already stated, the status quo is: colonial powers controlling the game at the pro/international level, bad and inconsistent officiating, normalization of cynical/unsportsmanlike play, and massive corruption. As an American, these are easy to see because we have the advantage of a massive sporting culture. We have salary caps to enforce parity and scrutinize our own leagues' rules. There is a competitive marketplace for sports. If things are broken, people stop watching.
What about the US's influence in improving soccer would ruin it further? Moreover, do you understand your own sport well enough to make the judgment?
I love the references to a massive sporting culture in America while talking about a sport that has an order of magnitude more fans than there are Americans on the planet.
Your point about salary caps is interesting. It is good that we have these because otherwise you’d see something crazy, like the Dodgers simply buying a winning team with heretofore unseen amounts of money
UEFA isn't really an initialism (well, maybe a backronym). FI is from French and FA is from English. French also has the word Football, but it was taken from English. - Googling.
The Iranian team’s treatment is a prime example. The Somalian ref being denied entrance is another. And the Balogun red card is a double example (it shouldn’t have been a red card in the first place, but the precedent that the President of the host country can get a call overturned is even worse).
I am the last person to defend FIFA - I love the UEFA's stance here - but only Balogun's suspension can be pinned on FIFA. Those other things are down to USA politics. Bad, for sure, not really down to FIFA.
Other than those awful hydration breaks, they didn't ruin it much. I didn't love the extended half time in the final, but I was only hate watching Argentina anyway so didn't care much. Better to have the standard interval but not egregious to extend in the final. Overall it was a good tournament, a proper "feast of football" as we used to say. Some fine-tuning to do with the VAR but even then there weren't as many egregiously unfair calls as in years past. (Croatia's disallowed goal being a memorable example because it was so rare.) Many, many good games and some memorable moments - Cape Verde!
besides a significantly more common 4-3-3, I can't think of anything I particularly found entertaining - the waterworks, the extra VARs, the super special offside line. That's no feast. (and I can continue)
Yup! We had a bunch of friends over. Good times were had by all.
Finals are boring more often than not. You just have to accept that. And when one of the team’s key skill is suffocating the other side, a game like that was to be expected. Only my mighty compatriots were able to crack the code… once.
- The number of teams expanding weakened the group stage to a point of being ignorable
- The extraordinary pricing of the tickets
- "Hydration breaks" to cater for TV advertising
- The US red card being rescinded after a phone call from an interested party
- Argentina's free pass throughout
FIFA has been corrupt since the days of João Havelange, although his stance was broadly to bring football to more countries and just needed a way to finance that (enter stage left, Coca-Cola, and stage right, Adidas and ISL), but it started getting really wild after him.
It's gone unchecked. There was talk of the English FA pulling out of UEFA and FIFA some years ago, as there was a perception the soul of the game had been tarnished by both orgs.
This is a good first step, and I hope FIFA gets itself sorted. I hope UEFA also gets its house in order.
Ticket prices for all events anywhere will not come back down unless we make international travel harder. There were Taylor Swift fans who flew to every concert of one of her tours. When I attended the Hungaroring Grand Prix every single person seemed to be visiting from outside Hungary. Hosting in the wealthiest country of size of course made this worse but I predict ticket prices for popular events will only keep going up and up.
Argentina received more yellow cards on its last three games. How is that a "free pass"?
Cucurella should have been sent off, same as the Paraguay player for covering his mouth. Fernandez did get a yellow card for a very light challenge that he tried to avoid..
All the Argentina haters need to look at the facts. I expected more from HN.
Messi should've gotten red in the Algeria match (same ref who didn't have the balls to give star player a card, was doing the finals). Against England, Argentina were playing rugby again, and the ref just let it pass. Against Egypt, Egypt got a goal disqualified which.. was a goal. Against Switzerland, a rule of identity mismatch was used wrongly (it can only be applied on same team). Argentina was lucky to end the final with 10 players and only 1 goal against. It should've been 9 players, with a 3-0 score, but the corrupt FIFA couldn't match-fix that part. It'd have been too obvious.
I guess you also think the "Hand of God" goal, was also a legitimate and fair goal because something something Maradonna something something Malvinas something something god?
Look, it's football. We're all entitled to have opinions, state them with vigour and passion, but...
Step back. Is it fair to drop the "racist" slur on somebody for having a different perspective?
Referees do their best, and often get it wrong, but it seems to most people - including many neutrals - that refs got it wrong more times than not when Argentina was playing, and in Argentina's favour.
Is that a conspiracy? Well, Infantino definitely wanted Argentina in the final, so did he try and create that somehow? He seems pretty shady, it's hard for people to trust that he _didn't_.
But I'm prepared to accept it was just variance. The problem is, that variance undermined the competition for many people, in the same way hydration breaks did. It made it a worse World Cup for many fans.
I get that for an Argentinian, that seems unfair, but if this had happened to England's benefit, do you honestly think you'd be making the same accusations and would accept it if any criticism that came in their direction was met with slurs?
Peace. Chill. We're good. We're brothers in football. Let's hope we get another World Cup in our lifetimes, and that we get to enjoy it - and that means something different to what we just saw, for everyone's sake.
> But I'm prepared to accept it was just variance. The problem is, that variance undermined the competition for many people
Honestly I found it really frustrating that Balogun got that red card (and gross when political meddling suspended it) while Messi got nothing for a similar infraction. But variance is part of the game. I don’t actually think most of it is in any way malicious and I am not sure refs can do much more. So much is subjective. I’ve watched games where they hand out yellows for every minor infraction and it’s a shitty experience for everyone (fans, players, and coaches).
I do think Messi gets favoritism. He gets awarded free kicks right outside the box for softball fouls that no one else gets. But they are trying to protect their star. They don’t want the WNBA thing where every other game Clark gets egregiously fouled.
> in the same way hydration breaks did. It made it a worse World Cup for many fans.
I don’t really understand the hate for the hydration breaks. Giving athletes some water seems reasonable even if the underlying reason is ads. I think they should be 1-2 minute breaks, though.
The halftime show in the final was more egregious than the hydration.
Dude, this is gross. Stop calling people racist for disagreeing with you about Argentina. It’s not racism to call out concerns about Argentina’s play or reffing bias.
You should be embarrassed to repeatedly resort to ad hominem attacks like this.
First, it was a new formula of the tournament with more teams which explains the headlines about a someone setting a new record every 2 days.
Second, the hydration (ads!) breaks were clearly used to tweak some tactics, player positionning, etc, making it another half-time. It's a strategic opportunity. Why not introduce a 2 min drill, then ? - yuck- That's not football.
Third, I won't talk about that specific red card or that penalty kick, but the fact that players and staff complained so much about the refereeing issues hurts the trust we can have into the game as a whole.
The 27 min half time was only in the final. Every world cup introduces changes that will stick or not (e.g golden goal rule). Hydration breaks probably won’t stay.
I’ve followed the sport all my life and referee complains I would say less than usual.
I like having more teams. Might even extend to 64 next time.
These are difference of opinion. Nothing singles out this world cup as a “shit show” as the OP. It was a great experience to me and pretty much anyone I encountered in the stadiums.
This bit was kind of baffling to me. Like, the US has a bunch of large stadiums. Presumably they sometimes get used for stuff. How is it not a constant disaster?
There’s a medium sized (50k capacity) stadium near me, and even _with_ a train station with a train each way every ten minutes right beside it, and within easy walking distance of about five high capacity bus routes, it’s always a bit of a shitshow when a big event finishes. I’ve no idea how it could work _at all_ if you’re just depending on buses and cars, which a bunch of the US stadiums seemed to be.
I believe a big issue was that significant amounts of parking were closed at each of the host stadiums for "security reasons", fan watch areas, etc. When they did some overhead shots of the stadiums, you could see tons of empty parking lot space.
For local NFL games in a bigger stadium that, most people attending do drive, but do not park at the stadium, rather nearby, then walk the rest of the way. This spreads out the traffic over a much larger set of roads.
Yes. I was there at the france-spain match. Flew in in the morning was directed to the shuttles by super nice volunteers. Reasonable lines that were mostly in the shade and they were handling free water bottles.
I can't agree with that. Host countries share their culture through the World Cup. South Africa had vuvuzelas, Qatar put a bisht on the winning captain's shoulders, and the USA had a half-time show.
"Players are entitled to an interval at half-time, not exceeding 15 minutes; a short drinks break (which should not exceed one minute) is permitted at the interval of half-time in extra time. Competition rules must state the duration of the half-time interval and it may be altered only with the referee’s permission."
My interpretation is it is 15 minutes unless the referee allows something else.
That's a stretched interpretation. The first sentence says the interval does not exceed 15 minutes. The most natural way to read the last sentence is that the competition rules state how long the half-time is under those parameters (i.e., the rules can state that the interval is 10 minutes, but not 1 hour); likewise, the referee can allow the competition organizers to change the duration of the interval -- the competition rules notwithstanding --, but still within the parameters of the 1st sentence.
I'm almost too afraid to ask but what the hell...what makes a good half-time show?
I ask in earnest. I'm not American. I know there's a huuugggee buzz on who gets to do the Superbowl half-time show. But they all look the same to me: overly-polished extravagant pop performances. That can be an insult or a compliment depending on your mood but I say that as a fact. That description applies to the WC half-time show too so I don't see what makes it bad. Maybe you can accuse it of being even more over-the-top and garishly extravagant but does that make it bad?
Bad Bunny's half-time show seems to be generally considered good. Well, he's a good performer definitely and performed his show well. But what makes that different from the universally-panned WC one?
For the record, Bad Bunny isn't even in my daily playlist. I do have Coldplay but Chris Martin was so peripheral to the WC spectacle I didn't even notice him during the live broadcast.
It feels to me there's something else merited here other than just the performance itself. Bad Bunny, given his background and off-stage activism, was largely seen as a political statement. The WC show just seems too foreign for the core non-Northern American market.
I watched the WC final in a noisy bar. During the halftime the bar had its own entertainment while a muted Justin Bieber playing his guitar emoted on the big screen. I've since watched it in Youtube and I still don't get the universal disdain for it. Maybe they should've called in a bunch of Eurovision performers?
The football itself wasn't bad, it was all the other stuff - prices, unfair treatment for Iran, hydration breaks, the whole Balogun thing, the pre-game and half-time shows at the final, Trump photo-bombing the Spanish celebration, etc. Every WC has its own problems and some of these things will be forgotten about soon, but it definitely seemed more ruthlessly commercialised than ever before.
The racism participants were subjected to was the worst part for me (though I understand teams were treated very well by the local population). Hydration breaks. Incessant celebrity spotting. So many small details reminding you that US capitalism might already have succeeded in ruining the game you love. Or that they see the success of the tournament as a signal to ramp up the attacks on European club football (pushing for a franchise model).
I feel like how I imagine golfers felt once LIV golf was announced.
I'm sorry, but this is an incredibly silly comment. The "shit show" was systemic at the strategic level. Of course, people who went to see a game had a good time, the "shit show" is at the competition level.
- 48 teams is too much. 32 is a great sweet spot. 48 is ridiculous, it genuinely felt like too many games.
- The completely inconsistent application of VAR was scandalous. I've always been a huge opponent of VAR in soccer, and I really feel vindicated. It felt like it was only used for very pointed decisions. Either you use VAR to make no mistakes at all, or you don't use it.
- The "h2o breaks" were stupid as f. They were clearly only implemented to fit in more commercial breaks.
- as usual, getting the tickets is always a nightmare, but it's been like that for 20+ years
There was some good football, I'm not even bothered by the pre/mid-game shows. There were a lot of good things, but honestly it did feel like it was in spite of everything that was done to make it unbearable.
How and when VAR should be applied is an ongoing contentious discussion not exclusive to the World Cup.
I actually loved the 48 teams. It will probably expand to 64 next cup. More people tune in, nice surprises, upsets, cinderella stories.
Access and price of tickets has been a problem for a long time and getting worse for every live event. Not exclusive to the World Cup.
There are obviously things to improve but the game and experience for people watching and attending was pretty amazing. Leaving in the US I ve had fantastic interactions with strangers everywhere for weeks.
If that’s what a “shit show” is I’m looking forward to more ha ha
I say let the coaches have the right to initiate a VAR review. They inform an official they want a certain moment/decision/action reviewed. As long as the review gets resolved in their favor, they can keep invoking VAR. This would disincentivize review spamming, disrupting play. If there are too many VAR calls in a game, you can squarely blame the ref.
Coaches get in the face of the officials already anyway. This just gives the action a chance at being productive rather than an opportunity to get a red card.
Yes, this is based on the derided review system of Olympic Taekwondo. It's horrible in a fight sport but football is a ball game; somebody tell Paredes and Paraguay please.
Maybe the way that Infantino nakedly advanced political favors for Trump (the f×××ing peace prize, Folarin f×××ing Balogun) and now wants a fat slice of payback?
Not worth it. Get a Meta Quest 3 and can vibe code something similar in a few hours. I recommend WebXR that comes with the built-in browser. Easier to distribute, share, collect feedback and iterate than native. And can use A-Frame: open source framework, very accesible and that I help maintain :)
Every single technology in history has had people claiming potential existential risks that didn’t materialize. Burden of proof is on people making the risk claims. Those have to be specific and unique to that technology to grant special actions.
i'm not trying to be rude, but i really don't get what you mean by this?
(https://www.amazon.com/Superintelligence-Dangers-Strategies-...)
there's been people making specific and unique risks to this technologies for years, before AI was even present. anthropic was literally founded because they were worried about existential risk?
also, previous technologies have had existential risks? do you deny that nuclear weapons could have killed humanity? obviously, there have no been existential risks that have killed all of humanity, because by definition, that can only happen once. it will literally be impossible for someone to ever point to an example of that happening, because they will be dead by the time that happens.
And video games, democracy, novels, TV, cars, photography, cryptography, the Beatles… pick your favorite and read commentary / opinions of the time. Many thought that came with unique risks never seen before and must be stopped!
How many of those concerns came from the people building the technologies? John Carmack wasn't up in arms about how Doom was going to destroy society. Charles Dickens didn't think novels rotted the brain. Johannes Gutenberg wasn't concerned about the effects of a free press.
None of the previous concerns were true and nothing indicates current ones are. It’s extrapolation, hypothetical apocalyptic imagined scenarios and piles of assumptions on how the technology could evolve. What makes even less credible in the AI case is that there’s financial / power to be gained by those making the claims.
And to your point. Don Quixote, the first modern and greatest novel of all times, is about a guy that lost touch with reality from reading too many books
None of the previous concerns were true, largely because they came from laypeople who didn't understand the technology. A prominent exception is nuclear weapons, where their creators did worry their creations could end up destroying the world. I think most people would agree those concerns were justified, and it's not any lack of capability that means we're still here.
The motivations aren't unique here. Restrictions on the development of almost any technology benefits incumbents by providing a moat.
Employees inside frontier labs have the chance to make life changing money if they can make it to an IPO before the music stops. Have you considered that might be the reason they are so eager to claim "ai dangerous - regulate ai"? The nuclear scientists at los alamos did not have generational wealth incentivizing them to raise "concerns" to the public.
If your only evidence that the claim "ai dangerous - regulate ai" is true is "insiders who stand to make billions if they can regulate away the competition" told me so, that is pretty weak evidence indeed.
If a group of concerned scientists (without $$$ in stock options) demonstrated that anyone with one year of HS chemistry, an Amazon account, and a ChatGPT max plan could build a bioweapon 10x more lethal than an AR15 mass shooting or driving a truck into a crowd (because it is certainly more than 10x harder to make a bioweapon than either of these things, even with a theoretical AGI), then that would be worrisome. This is really not that high of an evidence bar but even it has not been met, but oh no we should start regulating yesterday.
I mean, Cervantes was parodying medieval romances. That's what Don Quixote was reading, not modern novels.
The point is, it should give you at least some pause when the people most familiar with a technology are among those making the strongest statements about its potential dangers. Extrapolation has worked extremely well in predicting what AI will be capable of over the past 5 years; how confident are you that it will fail before we reach apocalyptic scenarios?
Cervantes was capturing the zeitgeist of the time: reading too many books can make you mad as they were becoming accesible to anyone. We know it’s not true.
People at anthropic don’t have any secret that many people outside already have. Again the burden of proof is on the person making a claim. That you feel concerned or scared doesn’t grant you special privileges to control or dictate a transforming technology.
These aren't assertions being made without arguments or evidence. Maybe you've engaged with those and find them unconvincing. But from what you've said in this thread it seems more like you've dismissed them without serious consideration. My point is not that everyone should just shut up and believe whatever frontier lab employees say, but that they should take a public statement like this as a sign that maybe they should carefully consider these concerns rather than dismiss them out of hand.
reply