Most likely a typo (fixed by now), but in some (most?) non-English languages billion is the correct word for 10^12 instead of 10^9, usually the error happens when translating from English though, not into English.
Apparently it's different between Portugal and Brazil? (e.g. Portugal => long-scale, Brazil => short-scale - but that's just what ChatGPT is telling me). E.g. maybe it's more of a 'Europe-except-UK vs Americas' thing?
If it happened, they better don't run polls for popular support. If the building were empty at the time of the strike, you'd probably get 70% among college students (Luigi had 41%).
Wow, this is bad news. Without in-office collaboration, company culture will collapse. The organic moments of spontaneous synergy won't take place. Perhaps OpenAI or even xAI will take over as leading company. Grim.
Imagine a world where 20% of the world compute is allocated to cheerleader-agents encouraging the other agents, and that’s the actual secret recipe to build an AGI
The idea of Anthropic allowing a contractor to squeeze such a tiny cost center at such a massive PR cost right before their IPO is just an objective blunder, IMHO. They should've replied to that email with a quick "No, you will be negotiating with the union tomorrow morning. You maybe eventually saving millions right now could cost us literally billions."
Ik the building intimately - it's not Anthroptic but the building's security company (which Anthropic does not own and is subleasing). SEIU is working to organize Allied Universal in California.
Support SEIU organizing them (their fighting the good fight in this case), but this specific article is clickbait.
So you go to the building owner and say, "give them what they want or we walk." Security team probably doesn't want outrageous changes. Building owner probably just being greedy.
You can't in most cases. These buildings are owned by larger conglomerates and are out of scope of landlord-leasee negotiations especially as it's a sublease.
Allied United is one of the larger security augmentation firms in the nation, which makes is harder. For example, my Alma mater was secured by Allied Universal as well as a dedicated PD because the dedicated PD didn't want to be bag check for a library when they have been dealing with real crime (eg. A comrade in their sister PD across town's was shot by the Boston marathon bombers).
That is why you need The Boring Company to drill your private bunker beneath a granite mountain. No bunker buster is going to reach the middle of a Swiss tunnel.
> That is why you need The Boring Company to drill your private bunker beneath a granite mountain. No bunker buster is going to reach the middle of a Swiss tunnel.
I'll eat a hat live at Demo Day if this ever happens. Until then, it's just more authoritarian tech bro bluster. Pick better cult leaders is my advice. The Boring Company has taken 5 years to complete 2.2 miles of the Vegas Loop. Better get started on those granite caverns now.
Grunts under coercion has a rich history that's still ongoing, but these sort of guards are those that would have both weapons and the guarded in their direct vicinity. I can't think of any historic example where this wasn't the loyalest of the loyal types.
These billionaires who have always relied on the power of the state for their security and asserting their property are absolutely delusional if they think they can keep it without it.
When states collapse, the one who emerge victorious aren't the well-mannered business people, it's the warlords (a.k.a. the heads of organized crime).
There have been plenty of times in history (almost all times) that physically weaker men have secured the loyalty of soldiers with wealth and influence during periods where strong centralized civic authorities did not exist.
But the soldiers didn't have the mobile phones then. This was possible by manipulation the information about reality those soldiers had.
For example, how Mallory can gain power over Alice and Bob who don't directly communicate.
First, Mallory tells Alice: "I am stronger than you. If you don't do what I say I'll kill you." So Alice decides to submit.
Then, Mallory takes Alice to Bob and says to him: "Together with Alice we are stronger than you, and kill you if you don't do what I want." So Bob submits.
This only works if Bob doesn't talk to Alice, otherwise they would together see the empty threat.
With more people, it becomes a bit trickier but hopefully you see how blocking communication helps to gain power over people. Often the blocking of communication is done through propaganda, e.g. Mallory might entice Alice and Bob to hate each other, so they wouldn't get together and figure he's the manipulator. Or Mallory might just kill someone randomly to motivate people not to talk to each other.
Anyway, this shows the importance of free speech (which is really a misnomer; it should be called a right to listen). If you can freely talk (and listen) to other people, you reduce your chances to being subjugated by someone.
(This is also why in a war, people are incentivized to dehumanize the other party and not to listen what they say, because together they could figure out that the real enemy are the war profiteers on both sides, colluding. And besides, killing is the most reliable way of silencing someone. That's why people should also universally reject killing - based on someone else's word - unless they are directly threatened themselves.)
But, historically, strongmen/chieftains have not had incredible trouble keeping their goons under control. Most threats from from palace coups not popular revolt. Most normal people in uncertain times like order and aren't going to flip the table on a system that gives them stability, food and shelter.
My recollection from Roman history is that was certainly a part of it, but that 'I command the palace guard, so I should command the empire' also played a large role.
Just pay them well enough. Or pay the people at the top a good amount of money to keep the people below in check and have some hope you can rise to the top for a small portion of the people.
Lol at "On secondary markets, investors have propelled the company to a $1.5 billion valuation."
Most likely a typo (fixed by now), but in some (most?) non-English languages billion is the correct word for 10^12 instead of 10^9, usually the error happens when translating from English though, not into English.
Never heard of this... Any examples?
> billion is the correct word for 10^12 instead of 10^9
Is it? In Portuguese it's thousand, million, billion, trillion... (Milhar, milhão, bilhão, trilhão, ...)
Apparently it's different between Portugal and Brazil? (e.g. Portugal => long-scale, Brazil => short-scale - but that's just what ChatGPT is telling me). E.g. maybe it's more of a 'Europe-except-UK vs Americas' thing?
typo? or did an editor see the original and say "trillion must be a typo"
I imagine the logprob of b is much greater than t in this context for most models. So 'trillion' gets corrected to the more likely 'billion'.
Freudian slip.
Fixed it seems.
At first I read the title as a possible missile strike on Anthropic's office by a hostile actor.
If it happened, they better don't run polls for popular support. If the building were empty at the time of the strike, you'd probably get 70% among college students (Luigi had 41%).
One can always hope
Everyone should boycott Anthropic and stop using Claude. I'm starting with myself.
They should just give engineers PDWs and call it a day.
Wow, this is bad news. Without in-office collaboration, company culture will collapse. The organic moments of spontaneous synergy won't take place. Perhaps OpenAI or even xAI will take over as leading company. Grim.
"Claude, was this sarcasm?"
- You're absolutely right!
It is not as if they can't write encouraging prompts to mythos from everywhere.
Imagine a world where 20% of the world compute is allocated to cheerleader-agents encouraging the other agents, and that’s the actual secret recipe to build an AGI
The idea of Anthropic allowing a contractor to squeeze such a tiny cost center at such a massive PR cost right before their IPO is just an objective blunder, IMHO. They should've replied to that email with a quick "No, you will be negotiating with the union tomorrow morning. You maybe eventually saving millions right now could cost us literally billions."
Strikes only happen when management has refused to negotiate in good faith already. Usually many times refused.
I think the parent poster is saying, "management, get your fucking head on straight and negotiate properly".
Ik the building intimately - it's not Anthroptic but the building's security company (which Anthropic does not own and is subleasing). SEIU is working to organize Allied Universal in California.
Support SEIU organizing them (their fighting the good fight in this case), but this specific article is clickbait.
So you go to the building owner and say, "give them what they want or we walk." Security team probably doesn't want outrageous changes. Building owner probably just being greedy.
As I understand it, this union negotiation isn't with a single building, it's with multiple large staffing firms across California
You can't in most cases. These buildings are owned by larger conglomerates and are out of scope of landlord-leasee negotiations especially as it's a sublease.
Allied United is one of the larger security augmentation firms in the nation, which makes is harder. For example, my Alma mater was secured by Allied Universal as well as a dedicated PD because the dedicated PD didn't want to be bag check for a library when they have been dealing with real crime (eg. A comrade in their sister PD across town's was shot by the Boston marathon bombers).
So Anthropic, because they don't own the building, is unable to solve this by throwing money at it? I find that amusing.
Except they can. Anthropic could just hire their own security for when the other guys go on strike.
And there goes every single rational for having a security team at the disaster bunkers the billionaires are building
They’ll be armed Boston Dynamics robots soon
Bunker busters are not picky, and can be safely delivered from altitude autonomously.
That is why you need The Boring Company to drill your private bunker beneath a granite mountain. No bunker buster is going to reach the middle of a Swiss tunnel.
They'll thank you for digging your own grave and complete it for you by collapsing the entrance.
> That is why you need The Boring Company to drill your private bunker beneath a granite mountain. No bunker buster is going to reach the middle of a Swiss tunnel.
I'll eat a hat live at Demo Day if this ever happens. Until then, it's just more authoritarian tech bro bluster. Pick better cult leaders is my advice. The Boring Company has taken 5 years to complete 2.2 miles of the Vegas Loop. Better get started on those granite caverns now.
https://tenor.com/search/yeah-sure-okay-gifs
https://elonmusk.today/
https://gizmodo.com/elon-musk-no-one-gets-free-bread-until-i...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_predictions_for_autono...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegas_Loop
https://blog.ucs.org/steven-higashide/transportation-profess...
https://finance.yahoo.com/technology/ai/articles/predictions...
Presumably they'll have stuff there the security team wants.
The security team have guns and aren't given a 2nd thought, kinda invisible even. They don't need to negotiate.
Like security guards' families.
Awful, but not without historical precedent.
Which precedent?
Grunts under coercion has a rich history that's still ongoing, but these sort of guards are those that would have both weapons and the guarded in their direct vicinity. I can't think of any historic example where this wasn't the loyalest of the loyal types.
There are plenty of people who have been killed by their own bodyguards, e.g., Indira Gandhi.
Fear the security guard who has nothing to lose.
I did almost write that! But if disaster really strikes, then just resources will be useful.
And who guards the guards family?
These billionaires who have always relied on the power of the state for their security and asserting their property are absolutely delusional if they think they can keep it without it.
When states collapse, the one who emerge victorious aren't the well-mannered business people, it's the warlords (a.k.a. the heads of organized crime).
Don’t think those folks are union…
There have been plenty of times in history (almost all times) that physically weaker men have secured the loyalty of soldiers with wealth and influence during periods where strong centralized civic authorities did not exist.
But the soldiers didn't have the mobile phones then. This was possible by manipulation the information about reality those soldiers had.
For example, how Mallory can gain power over Alice and Bob who don't directly communicate.
First, Mallory tells Alice: "I am stronger than you. If you don't do what I say I'll kill you." So Alice decides to submit.
Then, Mallory takes Alice to Bob and says to him: "Together with Alice we are stronger than you, and kill you if you don't do what I want." So Bob submits.
This only works if Bob doesn't talk to Alice, otherwise they would together see the empty threat.
With more people, it becomes a bit trickier but hopefully you see how blocking communication helps to gain power over people. Often the blocking of communication is done through propaganda, e.g. Mallory might entice Alice and Bob to hate each other, so they wouldn't get together and figure he's the manipulator. Or Mallory might just kill someone randomly to motivate people not to talk to each other.
Anyway, this shows the importance of free speech (which is really a misnomer; it should be called a right to listen). If you can freely talk (and listen) to other people, you reduce your chances to being subjugated by someone.
(This is also why in a war, people are incentivized to dehumanize the other party and not to listen what they say, because together they could figure out that the real enemy are the war profiteers on both sides, colluding. And besides, killing is the most reliable way of silencing someone. That's why people should also universally reject killing - based on someone else's word - unless they are directly threatened themselves.)
If civilization collapses, the billionaires are correctly assuming the security team will stop following SEIU strike authorization protocol.
They are perhaps incorrectly assuming the security team with all the weaponry will remain loyal to them.
that's probably dependent on the specific genre of collapse we get to enjoy
Sure. Who knows.
But, historically, strongmen/chieftains have not had incredible trouble keeping their goons under control. Most threats from from palace coups not popular revolt. Most normal people in uncertain times like order and aren't going to flip the table on a system that gives them stability, food and shelter.
> But, historically, strongmen/chieftains have not had incredible trouble keeping their goons under control.
Sure. But some of them seize power from others on their way up via force.
Would "one of you promises the security team better conditions if they kill a rival" not be how palace coups usually work?
My recollection from Roman history is that was certainly a part of it, but that 'I command the palace guard, so I should command the empire' also played a large role.
> historically, strongmen/chieftains have
Yup, but those aren't the same people as the one who get to become tech billionaires.
Just pay them well enough. Or pay the people at the top a good amount of money to keep the people below in check and have some hope you can rise to the top for a small portion of the people.
If civilization collapses, money is useless
[dead]