| ▲ | Recursing 2 hours ago |
| I think it's because customers don't seem to mind enough to switch. I really want to support Anthropic because of their commitments to effective altruism, but it's getting harder and harder to justify on technical merits. Sol is just faster, cheaper, and more reliable, and as good as Opus for my use cases |
|
| ▲ | lxgr an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| > I really want to support Anthropic because of their commitments to effective altruism If you're really committed to the ideas of EA, shouldn't you dispassionately select whatever model works best for you, then make as much money as possible using that and donate it? :) |
| |
|
| ▲ | integricho an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Do you actually believe in their altruistic goals? |
| |
|
| ▲ | chrisjj 7 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [delayed] |
|
| ▲ | jcfrei an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I've recently started using codex for most of my coding. Haven't looked back so far: It seems to reason deeper about the code it writes and has much less downtime. |
|
| ▲ | nicce an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > I really want to support Anthropic because of their commitments to effective altruism They are doing the opposite while saying the other. Zero trust about that. They are using every malicious playbook tactic these days to increase users and be more profitable and lock-in the users. Even OpenAI feels better these days. |
| |
| ▲ | puelocesar an hour ago | parent [-] | | I mean, that’s exactly what “effective altruism” is about? Getting filthy rich and powerful no matter the methods and then the vague promise of doing something good? | | |
| ▲ | nicce 29 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Not really. They seems to chase IPO so that alone proves that they can’t hold any promise about doing something good. They would need to stay as private company to have any power to do some ”good” in the end. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | therein 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > commitments to effective altruism That's a downside if anything. |
| |
| ▲ | eru an hour ago | parent [-] | | Different folks have different preferences. | | |
| ▲ | KingMob an hour ago | parent [-] | | Yes, some people think effective altruism means helping people here and now as efficiently as possible. Others think the sheer number of potential sentients in the future justify any amount of suffering tolerated in the here and now. Notably, people in the latter group never assume THEY will be the ones suffering for the future. | | |
| ▲ | Smaug123 25 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Estimate of the number of people in that latter group? Nick Beckstead is probably the cleanest example of an extreme longtermist, but even he has taken the GWWC pledge. Similarly, Nick Bostrom argues in a pretty longtermist way and is neither vegan nor has taken the pledge, but I don’t see any particular evidence that he has a morality that an average person would call evil. Toby Ord and Will MacAskill are both visibly mundanely extra-super-ethical despite their longtermist views. | |
| ▲ | eru 33 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Notably, people in the latter group never assume THEY will be the ones suffering for the future. What makes you think so? What evidence do you have? > Yes, some people think effective altruism means helping people here and now as efficiently as possible. Most effective altruists seem pretty relaxed about the 'here' part, but you are right that the 'now' part receives different answers from different subgroups. > Others think the sheer number of potential sentients in the future justify any amount of suffering tolerated in the here and now. There's also the people who care a lot about shrimp. They are less crazy than it seems at first. |
|
|
|
