What I mean to say is, they’re deliberately leaving their status vague—but the reference to “bootstrapping” in their early blog post suggests a human-based identity trying to progressively augment and replace the human aspects with pure OpenClaw. But that’s not stated explicitly—I’m reading between the lines.
The general impression I get from their About page is that Rathbun is a human coder trying to “bootstrap” into a fully-autonomous AI, but wants to leave their status ambiguous.
It doesn’t necessarily sound like the FAA’s concerns were petty.
Sporting events existed for thousands of years before advertising—don’t mistake current conditions for necessary ones.
The same is true of physics, inasmuch as it lets us divide hypothetical scenarios into possible and impossible.
All of them are systems for separating scenarios into those that conform and those that do not.
Realism gives rise to more epistemological issues—anti-realism is more logically rigorous insofar as you’re making fewer assumptions beyond what you’re explicitly given (i.e., a stream of sensory impressions).
Even if you’re a realist at heart, it can be instructive to see how far you can get before taking the leap of faith that the source of your senses is actually what you think it is.
They assumed it was a chatbot, but it was actually RFK Jr. replying in person.
Section 1983 and Section 1985 of the Civil Rights Act stipulate that a person may be liable for violating constitutional rights, even if they’re not a state or local government employee, if they conspired with state or local employees.
So local law enforcement agencies assisting ICE may actually be setting them up for lawsuits?
The title has nothing to do with the linked article. Did you mean to link to this?
Judge Christina A. Snyder of the Federal District Court in Los Angeles issued a preliminary injunction against the mask ban, ruling that California’s new law was unconstitutional because it did not impose the same requirements on all federal, state and local law enforcement officers.
Well, there’s an easy fix for that.
They’ve got a case of manfluenza.
I figured it was just bad OCR.
Any group can be empowering for its members. If it’s a group that already has an unequal amount of power in society, exclusive meetings will tend to exacerbate the inequality. But if it’s a relatively powerless group, it can counter the imbalance.
I studied linguistics in the 90s, and that was the general attitude about Chomsky then (specifically universal grammar and to some extent X-bar theory—his work on generative syntax and formal grammar from the 50s was still considered foundational).
But I’ve lately discovered the research of the Minimalist program that he was working on for the last few decades, and that seems pretty solid and groundbreaking even now.
Chomsky’s attitude seems representative of a lot of men and women (most of whom were younger than him) who had always described themselves as feminists, but who had similar feelings that #metoo was unfounded hysteria.
Epstein was capitalizing on that and promoting it, not just with Chomsky but with a lot of other academics outside of his usual circle.
What I find most damning in the correspondence isn’t Chomsky’s defense of Epstein—he seems to have genuinely believed in his innocence—so much as Chomsky’s subscribing to the framework that the #metoo movement/“cancel culture” and associated wave of sexual assault allegations was a baseless collective “hysteria”. Valeria’s statement implies that this was a stance Chomsky arrived at independently of Epstein.
Kanzi selected the correct, “full” cup in 34 of 50 trials – better than would be expected from chance – suggesting he was able to understand the concept of pretend liquids.
While that’s slightly better than chance, it’s not as good as I’d expect if he were imagining it the way children do.
Maybe he was interpreting the fake pouring motion as a signal of intent or a general disposition of the pitcher to tilt into that cup, and was then indicating where he expects the liquid to be poured next?
Encryption with safe, unexploitable backdoors.
In terms of software, yes. But HA can be run on nearly anything—there’s no need to buy their hardware to use it.
The Fall of France and the Vichy regime were pathetic, but the French Resistance was legendary.