> So, unsourced vibes from a shady guy whose entire empire is built on being against AI?

Actually he provides sources when he analyses stuff and imho much better than the usual corporate "Sam Altman says we should ask ChatGPT how to raise babies" crap. Also, I don't know many 'shady' guys who have built entire "empires", nor does he seem to actually have an empire. Usually being shady means you are kind of unknown and all. I am not glorifying Ed, don't even know him personally. I am not even impressed with his writing style much to be honest. But he brings important facts and information to light, which otherwise would have been lost in the cacophony of corporate media light treatment of these con-men. Holy Grail? Blowing up in our faces? WTF are you talking about?

▲

supern0va an hour ago | parent | next [-]

>Actually he provides sources when he analyses stuff and imho much better than the usual corporate

You said it was likely an internal leak to the WSJ "according to Ed Zitron". Did Ed have a source for that, or was it just vibes?

▲

hansmayer an hour ago | parent [-]

The source was the article in the WSJ itself, which then referred to their source at the Anthropic. Which kind of is a textbook definition of "leak". Because otherwise Anthropic would have their lawyers hunting both the employee breaking their stringent NDA and the WSJ as well...

▲

supern0va an hour ago | parent [-]

Fair enough, but I have to admit I'm puzzled about why you felt the need to then attribute it to Zitron?

▲

hansmayer 40 minutes ago | parent [-]

Why puzzled ? I literally said "According to Ed Zitron", implying that's where I stumbled upon the article. I've no time to read corporate media, at least not regularly.

	▲	supern0va 36 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		>more like their own leak to WSJ and according to Ed Zitron ^ Apologies, the above read to me like you were saying that Ed himself was claiming that Anthropic leaked to the WSJ.

▲

aspenmartin 40 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]