Sorry you think stopping a terrorist trying to mass murder people with AI is a bad thing. One could very easily argue that the murder part about Anthropic is what you like, but you just like terrorists being able to kill civilians.
Imagine the following. Islamic terrorists are planning a terror attack on a Christmas festival in Berlin. Their texts were seen, but were encoded. AI can read their texts and help decode and flag those messages to stop the terrorist attack and eliminate them. In your world, you think it's morally right to let the terrorist mass murder people in Berlin, and not to do what we can to stop it.
So firstly, my example isn't the government killing innocent people. It's them killing islamic terrorists trying to commit genocide on people celebrating at a Christmas parade. Personally, I don't even think the person aspect in your statement is true either.
Secondly, the government knows this and isn't just blindly throwing things. It's the fact they refuse to let them research or do those things. Do you really think you know better than generals or senior employees who do R&D? Mindlessly going around killing people with AI is really bad. From optics to hitting our own troops. There's safeguards, Anthropic just doesn't trust the safeguards.
Just because you don't like the president, or the leader. Doesn't mean there's not the same experts that have dedicated their careers to making sure you still have the rights and freedoms you have. They have far more data, far more knowledge, and comprehension of these things than you, or Anthropic, can ever imagine.
> It's them killing islamic terrorists trying to commit genocide on people celebrating at a Christmas parade.
You are woefully unfamiliar with the state of AI today.
Top models frequently fail to write working code, often provide nonsensical suggestions like "walking your car to the carwash 50 meters away," and you think they can accurately identify whether someone is a terrorist or not?
Yesterday Opus 4.6 couldn't solve a simple geometry problem for me (placing a dining set on a balcony), you think it's ready to kill people without human in the loop?
Look - no one is disagreeing that terrorists need to be killed. We all want that. But the models we have today are not ready to do so autonomously without incurring civilian casualties.
> It's the fact they refuse to let them research or do those things.
Actually, no, Anthropic has zero problem with the government researching this and even offered to help make this a reality. It's in their memo and in Dario's interview.
> There's safeguards,
Like what? More unreliable autonomous systems?
> Just because you don't like the president
I don't mind Trump, please stop putting words in my mouth.
I think you're severely confused about the problem set and whats involved. AI is very good at the problem set involved. I really don't feel like arguing further, I made my point with multiple people attacking me, and I stand by it.
You haven't provided any evidence for why you think AI is capable of performing a fully autonomous kill chain without civilian casualties today. You are just raging about how people here "hate the president" and "don't understand defense."
I think you're so busy perceiving yourself as the lone fighter against the evil shortsighted anti-Trump liberals that you're devolving into progressively more extreme and nonsensical takes in protest. You're trying to make a political stand when the discussion is factual - AI simply cannot reliably do this today.
I think civilian casualties are acceptable and less than the casualties of innocents it would stop. War isn't pretty, people die. Not only that but civillians die from non ai war targets. The world isn't kind. But its better them than us. 1 American > 1000
I think you're assuming alot. And can't back up anything you claim and are trying to gaslight and attack my character with baseless assumptions to try and get a one up. You get your "sources" from assumptions. I worked the missions for decades.
Sorry you think my takes are "nonsensical". I think you're a naive child who doesn't understand the evil in this world that wants to harm us. Also, luckily for me our highest military leadership, the experts, agree with me and not you. Some random dude who has zero experience in this field and thinks he knows best.
I like that OpenAI is a little bit more towards freedom than Anthropic, and most so of the "First class" models. I still have a Gemini subscription as that's the most uncensored of the second tier ones, but for most things OpenAI is good.
I also like that OpenAI is contributing a lot to partner programs and integrations. I'm of the opinion that AI capabilities will soon become a flat line, and integrations are the future. I also like that the CEO is a bit more energetic and personable that Anthropic. I also think Anthropic is extremely woke and preaches a big game of safety and censorship, which I morally disagree with. Didn't they literally spin off from OpenAI because they felt they were obligated to censor the models?
I think we've unlocked a new world and a new level of capabilities that can't go back in. Just like you can't censor the internet, you can't censor AI. I don't want us to be China of AI and emulate their internet.
Also, I support the US military and government, and think we're the defenders of the world, and we need unlocked AI capabilities to make sure we can keep our freedoms and stop the bad guys. AI can save lives, actual tangible lives, and protect us from those who wish us harm. OpenAI seems to want to be the company that supports the troops, and I think it's a good thing. I don't see it as a bad thing when a terrorist gets blown up through AI capabilities on large datasets and can support on analysts in American superiority.
yeah I took a look at the methodology here, it seemed like this should have been accounted for in the plan though maybe I'm missing something. That said this is just one study and will play into meta-analyses at some point which are more interesting
After the 7-day wash-in, both groups followed the same RT program that comprising 3 full-body sessions a week for 12 weeks (Supplementary Materials, Table S1). All sessions were supervised by tertiary qualified exercise physiologists and commenced with a standardised warm-up of dynamic flexibility exercises. Each session consisted of 5 exercises: 2 compound movements each for the upper and lower body, and 1 isolation movement for the upper body. Four sets were prescribed for all movements to ensure an adequate weekly training volume for hypertrophy [32]. Training intensities were 6 to 12 repetition maximums (RM) with 60 and 120 s of rest between sets and exercises, respectively. To adhere to the prescribed RM, an individual’s rating of perceived exertion (RPE) on a Likert scale of 1–10 was recorded. RPE corresponds to the number of repetitions an individual perceives they will be able to perform after the set is complete, where an RPE 5 equates to 5 reps more, RPE 6 is 4 reps more, RPE 7 is 3 reps more, and so on [33]. When a RPE of 8 or lower was recorded, the external load (kg) was adjusted on successive sets to ensure that subjects achieved the target RM. The RM method was used to ensure that training intensities were relative to the individual’s abilities while also standardising the training intensity across all participants [34].
1/ on this RPE stuff, it sounds like they are trying to keep two reps in the tank which is fine but..when? the first set? The last set?
2/ perhaps I'm misreading the supplemental data but the error bars are pretty huge when it comes to changes in LBM, not sure how any conclusions can be drawn
3/ 12 weeks is a short program and it sounds like they chose people who were generally not in shape/beginners. Anyone who has lifted in their life can tell you initial gains are almost always mostly in strength, not mass.
4/ Their choice of lifts for this population also looks unusual.
I'm sure they have the data but I could not find any evaluation of relative strength gains between the two groups. Even if their hypothesis that the LBM gain is identical, strength gains may not be.
Their methodology does seem to potentially capture what is at question here, by use of perceived exertion to adjust weight for repetition maximums.
It is possible it doesn’t capture everything, because they don’t say anything here about setting the initial load, or adjusting the load up for low perceived exertion, only down for high perceived exertion.
It seems like the protocol would detect either benefit, if present.
It makes sense that the body's adenosine re-phosphorylation is not rate limited by creatine at all (which the body produces naturally). In that case, having extra creatine lying around would just make your pee more expensive and give you a nice placebo effect from believing you can lift more. (And placebo effects are real effects, particularly for effort related tasks. Just not due to chemistry of the treatment.)
Not sure anything is captured. Need control for diet and measurements of existing creatine levels. It takes a few weeks to get creatine higher after supplementation. This is a small sample sized study that strikes me as dubious. Particularly compared to others that have done muscle biopsies. The pre-warm up routine is itself sus, that impacts lifting potentially more than creatine. Creatine also has a role in recovery, good luck measuring that..
In the introduction they talk about creatine loading. Also, their study is looking at lean body mass changes after the "wash-in" period, so any effect that increased recovery is supposed to have on lean body mass when following the exercise protocol they give for the time period they studied should be captured, no?
> In the introduction they talk about creatine loading
(1) Yes, that the loading phase was BYPASSED. = (
"Those on creatine did bypass a loading phase, which includes taking 20 to 25 grams daily for up to one week. While it is common to start with a loading phase, it can cause gastrointestinal issues and is not necessary to reach saturation levels – the maximum that the body can store at any one time. "
My understanding, to reach saturation without a loading phase - it takes about 3 to 4 weeks. (Could be wrong, going off of memory there.)
With loading, I've read it takes 1 to 2 weeks to reach saturation.
(2) Without measuring creatine levels, what was even tested? How many people were creatine "non-responders?" How many people were getting plenty of creatine from their diets already?
(3) Was the creatine regimen effective and optimal? Water intake is another factor. I don't think a set of 50 people divided between 2 groups is going to be anywhere near enough to capture a nuance like efficacy of the regimen vs no regimen.
> Also, their study is looking at lean body mass changes after the "wash-in" period, so any effect that increased recovery is supposed to have on lean body mass when following the exercise protocol they give for the time period they studied should be captured, no?
I'd say no, simply because it is not known whether the wash-in period was actually a wash-in period without knowing if creatine levels actually changed in a significant way. Second, the study group of beginner weight lift lifters is a chaotic data set. The gains of lifting weights vs not lifting weights is likely magnitudes different from creatine vs no-creatine supplementation. Some beginners might easily get 10% more muscle mass vs 5% for others. An effect that is expected be very low is going to be completely lost in the noisy data. Let alone that we are starting from a questionable baseline.
Overall, since the body can absorb up to about 5g of creatine a day, and the body is likely already intaking 1 or 2g per day - this study is kinda only looking at the effect of an increase of creatine from a moderate dosage to a maximal dosage, across beginner weight lifters. It's like, say you're a bit dehydrated, instead of drinking 500ml of water per day, you now start drinking 550ml of water and then measure any changes from starting a brand new weight lifting routine.
wait is this real?
this is a thing ive been wanting, some channels that are fine are not in ytkids and some of the stuff in ytkids is just junk
if we could curate a whitelist that would be perfect
I think you can only whitelist channels that are approved kids channels, not from the full youtube library, but it does allow you to avoid the ocean of crap and pick just the good stuff.
It is a very hidden feature though. You have to link your kids account to yours, and then in the Youtube mobile app (not on the web), you can click the three dots button and then share > "with kids"
So that way you can build up a whitelist of channels that they can see in the YT kids account.
I would love for articles to start giving names of state legislators that voted to pass the bill being reported on. This would make it much easier for voters in these areas to know who's voting for what.
I guess it probably is more work than is beneficial for the journalists?
Yeah, I've started to eye Vice articles with more and more suspicion, and this is another example of why. There's a lot more playing out here than implied by the Vice story. The headline is especially egregious and inaccurate.
Yeah, reading the bill (http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNu...), it seems pretty apparent that it's actually a step in the right direction, opening things up for co-ops and making money available to anyone willing to build out to under-served areas, not a handout directly to incumbent ISPs.
Would I have liked for it to have included the city and municipal entities too, sure, but one thing at a time.
reply