Lmao, from an NPR article on the same topic:

They filed an affidavit from an insurance broker saying it is “not possible” to find a bond that big. The broker was an expert witness for Trump during the trial.

The trial judge already noted in his decision that this broker was a “close personal friend” of Trump’s and had a financial interest in the outcome. A decision could come from the appeals court later this week.

I’m sure the judge will give the broker’s opinion all the deference it’s due. /s

The problem is that there’s no incentive for employees to stay beyond a few years. Why spend months or years training someone if they leave after the second year?

But then you have to question why employees aren’t loyal any longer, and that’s because pensions and benefits have eroded, and your pay doesn’t keep up as you stay longer at a company. Why stay at a company for 20, 30, or 40 years when you can come out way ahead financially by hopping jobs every 2-4 years?

It makes sense to judge how closely LLMs mimic human learning when people are using it as a defense to AI companies scraping copyrighted content, and making the claim that banning AI scraping is as nonsensical as banning human learning.

But when it’s pointed out that LLMs don’t learn very similarly to humans, and require scraping far more material than a human does, suddenly AIs shouldn’t be judged by human standards? I don’t know if it’s intentional on your part, but that’s a pretty classic example of a motte-and-bailey fallacy. You can’t have it both ways.

Hell, I’ve seen accusations that the author of this mod made literally that exact mod for BG3 that “fixed” Wyll and his father by turning them white. Shit’s disgusting.

Who even knows? For whatever reason the board decided to keep quiet, didn’t elaborate on its reasoning, let Altman and his allies control the narrative, and rolled over when the employees inevitably revolted. All we have is speculation and unnamed “sources close to the matter,” which you may or may not find credible.

Even if the actual reasoning was absolutely justified–and knowing how much of a techbro Altman is (especially with his insanely creepy project to combine cryptocurrency with retina scans), I absolutely believe the speculation that the board felt Altman wasn’t trustworthy–they didn’t bother to actually tell anyone that reasoning, and clearly felt they could just weather the firestorm up until they realized it was too late and they’d already shot themselves in the foot.

…So your metric of “too much AI safety” is that it won’t let you fuck the fish…?

The speculation I heard in the Ars Technica article is that the board was unhappy with how quickly he was pushing to commercialize OpenAI, and they were wary about all the AI side hustles he was starting, including an AI chip company to compete with nvidia.