To me this is just another marketing stunt where the company wants to build a public image so their customers trust them (see Apple), but then as always who knows what will happen behind the scenes. Just see when most major US companies had backdoors on their systems providing all data to the NSA, i.e. PRISM.
Anthropic's policy is full of contradictions. They are against mass-surveillance of Americans but they happily deal with Palantir. They talk about humanity as a whole but only care about what American companies use their models to do to Americans; everybody else is fair game for AI-driven surveillance. They warn of the dangers of AI-driven warfare by demonstrating a mass-scale cyberattack perpetrated using their model, Claude, as the main operation engine and immediately release a new, more powerful version of Claude. You just need to use Claude to protect yourself from Claude, see.
When you really start digging into it, it appears schizophrenic at first, and then you remember market incentives are a thing and everything falls into place.
>Anthropic's policy is full of contradictions. They are against mass-surveillance of Americans but they happily deal with Palantir.surveillance of Americans but they happily deal with Palantir.
Palantr will also be subject to the same contractual limitations as the DoD.
>They talk about humanity as a whole but only care about what American companies use their models to do to Americans; everybody else is fair game for AI-driven surveillance.
The stated red lines are about mass domestic surveillance and fully autonomous lethal weapons - and those are the kinds of restrictions you’d expect to apply to any government using the tech on its own population, not just the US.
While For American agencies to use Anthropic's models against other sovereign states requires the access to the raw data from that state which is somewhat of a practical firebreak. Pragmatically, Amodei is an American citizen heading an American company in America; why give the current regime additional reasons to persecute them and risk seizing control of the technology for their friends?
> They warn of the dangers of AI-driven warfare by demonstrating a mass-scale cyberattack perpetrated using their model, Claude, as the main operation engine and immediately release a new, more powerful version of Claude. You just need to use Claude to protect yourself from Claude, see.
What is the realistic alternative? sit quietly and pretend scaling isn't a thing and dual use does not exist? Try and pause/stop unilaterally while money floods into their arguably less scrupulous competitors?
Nobody knows if Anthropic's efforts will make much difference, but at least it is refreshing to see a technology company and its leader try to stand up for some principles.
> Palantr will also be subject to the same contractual limitations as the DoD.
Well, first of all, we don't actually know that. Second, I'm going to question the commitment of any company to the principles of democracy and AI safety if one of their bigger partnership is with a literal mass surveillance, Minority-Report-crap company. It's the most confusing business partner to see when you're positioning your company as THE ethical one. If you're dealing with Palantir, you're helping mass surveillance, full stop, because that's what this company does. Which country's citizens get the short end of it is completely irrelevant (though in all likelihood it's still Americans because that's Palantir's home turf).
> Pragmatically, Amodei is an American citizen heading an American company in America; why give the current regime additional reasons to persecute them and risk seizing control of the technology for their friends?
If that's how we characterize the current regime (which I actually agree with), then how come he's proactively trying to help it, deal with it, and insist it's a democracy that needs to be "empowered"? Sounds backwards to me. When you're about to be persecuted by your own government for not allowing it to use your models to do some heinous shit, this sounds like exactly the kind of government you shouldn't be helping at all (and ideally not do business where it can reach you). This is not normal.
> What is the realistic alternative? [...] Try and pause/stop unilaterally while money floods into their arguably less scrupulous competitors?
If you notice that you're doing harm and you're concerned about doing harm, stop doing harm! Don't make it worse! "If I hadn't pulled the trigger, somebody else would" is a phrase you wouldn't expect to hold up in court. Similarly, racing to the bottom to be the most compassionate, self-conscious, and financially successful scumbag is the least convincing motivation imaginable. We will kill you quickly and painlessly unlike those other, less scrupulous guys! Logic like this absolves bad actors from any responsibility. The amount of harm stays the same but some of it gets whitewashed and virtue-signalled, and at the very minimum I'd expect the onlookers like ourselves not to engage in that.
> Nobody knows if Anthropic's efforts will make much difference, but at least it is refreshing to see a technology company and its leader try to stand up for some principles.
These aren't principles. What he's doing here is a free opportunity for incredible PR and industry support that he's successfully taken advantage of. The actual policy backslides, caveats, and all the lines that had been crossed prior will not receive as much press as the heroic grandstanding of a humble Valley nerd against Pentagon warmongers. Nobody will actually take the time to read the statement and realize how the entire text is full of lawyer-approved non-committal phrasing that leaves outs for any number of future revisions without technically contradicting it. I've already pointed some of it out earlier in the thread. The technology for autonomous weapons isn't reliable enough for use, gee, thanks! I feel so much safer now knowing that Dario will have no qualms engaging with it as soon as he deems it reliable enough.
This isn't entirely true, isn't it? I mean, the whole internet runs on a PKI and we need such a mechanism to ensure secure communication across devices in the network.
I understand home devices that contain all sort of sensors and actuators should be handled in a similar fashion, isn't it?
I mean, that PKI doesn't exclude non-approved manufacturers from producing Matter devices, you can always trust their PAA (their CA) in your border router if it's not a well-known manufacturer. And also, I am pretty sure that if this is the case the Matter border router should warn you of this and ignore the fact that the PAA is not in the local store of root CAs (as we did in the times when we had https without Let's Encrypt and didn't want to pay Comodo to sign our certs)
You’re partially correct, but you’ve got enough details wrong details that you’re misrepresenting reality.
Matter has a public blockchain with certificates added to enforce which products are considered certified. This is called the distributed compliance ledger (DCL). The hardware devices are expected to ship with certificates on them that match the public ones, and it’s generally not possible to change the on-device certs.
This is distinct from “normal” internet PKI certificate authority where you can just swap out a few files or grab a new cert from Let’s Encrypt. Because this uses a dedicated blockchain with a history of signatures. Depending on how you want to control the device, you’d need to rebuild the whole chain of trust, including eg signatures from Google or Apple.
Also, from a practical perspective, I’m not sure of any actual controllers that let you point to different certificate sources. You can create devices with a “test vendor ID” (0xFFFF) and the controllers are supposed to ignore certs. This has downsides, like OTA updates require signing, you can’t encode proper identifiers in the device so info pages in apps are wrong, etc.
Also, the “border router” isn’t really the point of trust here, it’d be the actual controller device. A border router is just that, an IP router, like a WiFi router or a Ethernet router.
Disagree. Teslas used to be the car of choice for your average Green party voter. It’s the voter class that can afford this car. Elon is a persona non grata in these circles, and the alt right (on average) can’t afford this type or car.
Anecdata: I am interested in buying an EV. I have completely ruled out getting a Tesla, purely on the basis of Musk's behaviour. I'm in the UK. Given the history, I suspect that many Germans looking for EVs are even more sensitive to his behaviour than I am.
It’s kinda politics, as in Portugal, for instance, you can get a subsidy on pretty much any EV except for a Tesla - and it’s hard to see that as anything other than politically motivated.
Not politics, as I suspect you are probably aware.
In Portugal, electric vehicle (EV) subsidies are available for new battery electric vehicles (BEVs) priced up to €62,500, including VAT. This means that higher-priced models, such as Tesla vehicles, do not qualify for these incentives.
The primary reason for this price cap is to ensure that public funds are used to make EVs more accessible to a broader segment of the population, rather than subsidizing luxury vehicles.
There are many other incentives by the government, like not paying Vehicle Tax since they do not produce emissions. The incentives are listed here in the page of Tesla Portugal: https://www.tesla.com/pt_pt/support/incentives
> People just want to buy whichever is the best price/quality EV out there, they dont care who or what the CEO says most of the time.
Yes, most people think this way. However, what you have to remember is that virtue signaling is a thing. For years driving a Tesla was both a flex about how much money you made and how you were a good person, "ahead of the curve", and cared deeply about the planet. Whether these people want to admit it or not, a lot of their identity was expressed through the simple act of driving a Tesla.
Now that identity has, to others in their social circle, become synonymous with "Trump supporter" because of Musk. Hence a lot of Tesla's early supporters or "core demographic", if you will, is desperate to either dump their Teslas or make it VERY clear that they will never buy one.
We do, and they are pretty cool but incredible limited.
For one, you have to limit yourself to vscode and/or other IDEs with this capability - which ought to be a dealbreaker right there.
But then you still have issues around syncing permissions and paths inside+outside the environment. And that all your other windows have a different view into your project.
That alone is another dealbreaker (which you can bandaid, but...).
And then if you need access to USB devices, well for one I hope you are running linux but even then that is a frigging nightmare. And there is some headache balancing everything above with admin rights etc.
Yes in theory it is perfect. In practice we are not nearly there and you quickly realize the effort to do this well is orders of magnitude more work than just running native.
I still always have a container for continuous integration in a way that you can run it easily on your workstation and can be turned into a devcontainer and/or built manually for small fixes in an old project you haven't used in a long long time. Which is great!
But for your main development? I really tried but it is a nightmare in disguise.
Why not VMs? With the kind of computers dev have, I'd think it be trivial to have a VM dedicated to one project (unless you're doing gpu). This means I don't have tooling associated to projects (databases, webserver) populating the main env, only personal stuff.
This. I consider myself a VR/AR enthusiast and I've had many VR headsets since the DK1, included Hololens 2 (and now Vision Pro). The day I started using Hololens 2 I just though "Wow, I could wear this for hours and even do real work on this if the displays and performance were a bit better". The product was simply amazing but it had a few issues (mainly performance) that it limited the device to very specific use cases.
Microsoft decided to mostly abandon the project, move/fire most of the team and give up rather than keep spending resources on a product that had an incredible potential... What would happen if Microsoft released a headset like Hololens 2 capable of running Windows apps for consumers at a similar price to AVP? They have Windows Mixed Reality, an almost infinite software catalogue, and the capabilities to do it... buy they simply don't (think about the Surface).
I think GP finds it impressive that the technology enabling a device to _automatically_ resolve its position (simply by looking up at the sky) goes back this far. It impresses me, at least.
Sextants don't track stars. They just measure altitude and leave it up to a human to line everything up, measure it correctly, time it correctly, then look up the right data in a log book.
Anyone living in Germany with an EV should know pretty well that this is pretty much the case already anywhere in the country.
The incredible amount of HPC (> 150kW) chargers you can find even in the most remote rural areas in Germany is simply crazy, mostly thanks to the large amounts of german dealerships with HPC chargers (such as Porsche), gas stations like Aral with their own charging network, or even rest areas with IONITY or other providers... and lets not take into account Tesla SuC, as that would increase the number even more.
Yeah it isn't clear to me from the details currently available that this is much more than a PR stunt.
A quick Google tells me that Germany has around 15,000 petrol filling stations and already has around 90,000 public charging points.
Even if we assume that not a single petrol filling station has a charging point...and also assume that the not yet even proposed law is going to require a minimum of 2 charging points per station...that still only increases the supply by 30%.
We can all imagine variations on those parameters that make it look better or worse. Maybe they'll be required to have parity in numbers between petrol & EV pumps? But without anything concrete about the law, it is hard to know what there is to even discuss here yet.
Only about 7000 of those are HPCs (150kW+)[1]. This proposed law mandates at least 150kw per charge point, so it would more than triple the amount of HPC charge points.
In general, it makes a lot of sense to differentiate between slow chargers (usually AC, 11-22kW, installed at home, at work, in parking lots), DC fast chargers (50-100kw, often installed at grocery stores and similar) and HPCs (150kw+, often installed along highway corridors, enabling longer trips). They all serve different purposes.
Even if it only increases the supply by 30% it might be a massive help. The raw number isn't as important as the distribution. If all the charging stations currently are in hotspots, rural areas don't benefit from them. But rural areas have gas stations which this law will affect.
Funny that you're talking about Tesla. About 2 months ago, while I've been in Germany for about 2 weeks I've been in a shopping mall in sleepy Hamburg. Incredibly late shopping, because that fucking mall closes at 20:00. Imagine.
Took a shortcut through the parking spaces. Met two lost Danes in their Tesla, asking for the way to the chargers. Couldn't answer because I don't care about that stuff. As it happens, there ARE superchargers there, just not acessible after 20:00 because entry into the whole parking space is impossible, by turnpike/tollgate/barrier. Next SuC for HH at the Airport, or some car dealership in Norderstedt, about 10 to 12 km away from there. I know that now because I checked online, because I couldn't believe that. Just rechecked again, it's still shown as open 24/7 while in reality closed after 8 PM, and not open at all on sundays. Djörrmänny! I'm lovin' it! Aharrharrharr! Elende Schnarchnasen!
There is a problem with using CarPlay on an EV, and that is battery preheating. In a Tesla, Rivian, Mercedes, etc. EV, if you plan your route using the built-in satnav, the car will preheat the battery for charging which is extremely important when you are on a road trip.
Unless CarPlay includes a new interface for these kind of things, I would not be able to consider using CarPlay on a EV I am afraid.
reply