A similar idea from the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, ~7th century BCE
> 'And here they say that a person consists of desires. And as is his desire, so is his will; and as is his will, so is his deed; and whatever deed he does, that he will reap.
What is the strategy, in your view? Maybe something like this? --
1. All government employees get access to ChatGPT
2. ChatGPT increasingly becomes a part of people's daily workflows and cognitive toolkit.
3. As the price increases, ChatGPT will be too embedded to roll back.
4. Over time, OpenAI becomes tightly integrated with government work and "too big to fail": since the government relies on OpenAI, OpenAI must succeed as a matter of national security.
5. The government pursues policy objectives that bolster OpenAI's market position.
6. openAi continues to train "for alignment" and gets significant influence over the federal government workers who are using the app and toolkit, and thus the workflows and results thereof. eg. sama gets to decide who gets social sercurity and who gets denied
Yes, but there was also a step 0 where DOGE intentionally sabotaged existing federal employee workflows, which makes step 2 far more likely to actually happen.
Yes, but the federal government uses far more than just Office.
Microsoft is very far from being at risk of failing, but if it did happen, I think it's very likely that the government keeps it alive. How much of a national security risk is it if every Windows (including Windows Server) system stopped getting patches?
It's been a lot of fun getting the basic tools going: transliterators, morphological generators and analyzers, and some other things on top. But the main goal is to improve fluency as quickly and efficiently as possible.
As another Tamilian, thank you for making this! I'm fluent in spoken Tamil from my parents and I've learned to read and write at a basic level, but I'd never formally learned the language.
> Not all requests for help are predatory. It’s part of your job to help out engineers on your team, and cross-org impact really does involve helping others sometimes, even if you get nothing in return. Predatory behavior is a consistent pattern of drawing on your time for nothing in return.
For context, Andreessen is talking here about the Biden administration, and his revulsion to this approach is why he endorsed Trump:
> I, you know, look, and I would say like when we endorse Trump, we, we only did so on the basis of like tech policy. [...] Number two was ai, where I became very scared earlier this year that they were gonna do the same thing to AI that they did to crypto.
HN audience is essentially pro-Trump as well. 1/3rd of Santa Clara county (heart of Silicon Valley) voted for him, and a lot of tech employees come from authoritarian countries (China) and really see nothing wrong with authoritarian rule.
Second of all, your bar for "essentially pro-Trump" being 1/3rd of the vote is ridiculous, by your standard almost every county in America is "essentially pro-Trump".
Give me a break, that’s fine for rounding and a huge gap between SCC and San Francisco and Santa Cruz. SCC is the outlier in the region, and a good percentage of HN is very pro-Trump because a good percentage of HN is pro-greed.
And the point about Chinese being among the most pro-Trump is South Bay stands - I have had several conversations and most people from mainland (RIP HK) see zero problem with authoritarian rule.
Lots of voters see many things wrong with authoritarian rule but on the freedom versus authoritarianism spectrum it's not at all clear that Democrats are any better. With the recent national shift towards populism, both major political parties seem roughly equally authoritarian in different policy areas. Besides AI policy there are other major authoritarianism issues around online censorship, public health, gun control, recreational drugs, reproductive healthcare, etc. I'm not trying to start yet another fight over which side is right or wrong on those particular issues but rather using them as examples to show how both parties are authoritarian when it fits the ideology of their core voters and campaign contributors.
Overall voters who identify as Asian mainly voted for Harris. So I am skeptical of your claim that Trump got a lot of votes from first-generation immigrants from China.
You're thinking of koans [1], which are a specific kind of Zen speech used to shift the mind out of conceptual thinking. Outside of that context, Zen teachers often just talk in conventional language.
For many people (most?), part of appreciating art is to engage with it beyond mere color and shape. I mean context about the artist themselves, and their life and work, and what they were trying to articulate, and why they made the choices that they did. All of this is embedded in a social context in which art expresses intention and meaning and some artifact of human experience.
It's because many/most people feel and understand this context that they react so differently to artwork that they know is forged. If a painting were just an issue of color and shape, forgery would be irrelevant to how we relate to art. But for most, a painting is embedded in the social context I described above, and forgery feels like a violation of that contract.
AI art seems to fall in a similar category, since AI systems are not social agents and not human beings.
There are different levels of art, some of it is just something nice to look at. There is is no shame in that and often that is exactly what the artist was intending, it shouldn't be considered a lesser art, just a single form of it.
Other forms of art are what I think of as "an invitation to consider" which could range from a painting to a collection of chairs pointed at a small window (and beyond). There is a degree of snobbishness within the art community about the former, but really much less than you might expect. This, I think correlates with the survey's findings on open-mindedness and acceptance.
The nature of provenance and forgery is a completely different beast. The thing that is valued (in monetary terms) is the same intangible thing that NFTs trade, and when you think about it it makes as little sense.
There are instances where forgers have been caught and art owners have resisted wider investigations because it might reveal that something they own is a forgery. In that respect they really don't care if it is a work by the original artist but that it is believed that it is a work by the original artist.
In a similar vein is the peculiar case of Milli-Vanilli where the artwork was audio media but considered fake because of the artificial supplementary material.
In some respects I might even consider AI art to have an advantage by being unencumbered by such shenanigans.
I cut a digression on forgery to keep my comment short, but my focus is less on provenance and the habits of art owners and more on what it feels like to look at a painting that you know is forged (or copied, etc.) The mental story around that painting, which is half of the fun and most of the meaning, is quite different.
> 'And here they say that a person consists of desires. And as is his desire, so is his will; and as is his will, so is his deed; and whatever deed he does, that he will reap.