Only the best and brightest are working for Anthropic.
-
@Mabande It’s a logical reasoning model with polite UI. That’s neither a human or a machine. It’s a software solution
-
@Mabande Have a look at her Wikipedia page. If it's accurate, she's a very rigorous philosopher.
I'm tempted to say "no bullshit there" but it's possible to be rigorous and to spout bullshit.
My instinct says she has/they have other reasons for saying the things they do.
-
-
@Mabande Have a look at her Wikipedia page. If it's accurate, she's a very rigorous philosopher.
I'm tempted to say "no bullshit there" but it's possible to be rigorous and to spout bullshit.
My instinct says she has/they have other reasons for saying the things they do.
@Mabande To be a bit more direct and blunt about it. I am confident that Amanda Askell *is* among the best and brightest. She's motivated to say things about AI you (and I) disagree with. Part of the explanation for that is her position in the public eye (let me assure you, the New Yorker is never going to quote my thoughts about AI). Working for Anthropic is another motivation: lots of money, cultural capital, access to power, etc. But: not a dummy.
-
@Mabande To be a bit more direct and blunt about it. I am confident that Amanda Askell *is* among the best and brightest. She's motivated to say things about AI you (and I) disagree with. Part of the explanation for that is her position in the public eye (let me assure you, the New Yorker is never going to quote my thoughts about AI). Working for Anthropic is another motivation: lots of money, cultural capital, access to power, etc. But: not a dummy.
@adardis Checking her Wiki page I can't confirm her rigour, only that her academic career led to a PhD (which is cool and impressive, I wish I had the chops) and that she's involved in "over 60 papers and has received over 170,000 citations."
Checking the source for that claim I see that she's not the head author in any of the ones with more than 500 citations.
Her PhD thesis has been cited 47 times.The New Yorker will probably not quote either of us re. Theranos style blood testing either
-
@Mabande Have a look at her Wikipedia page. If it's accurate, she's a very rigorous philosopher.
I'm tempted to say "no bullshit there" but it's possible to be rigorous and to spout bullshit.
My instinct says she has/they have other reasons for saying the things they do.
-
-
@magitweeter All credit goes to the very prescient Avery Edison!
-
@Mabande To be a bit more direct and blunt about it. I am confident that Amanda Askell *is* among the best and brightest. She's motivated to say things about AI you (and I) disagree with. Part of the explanation for that is her position in the public eye (let me assure you, the New Yorker is never going to quote my thoughts about AI). Working for Anthropic is another motivation: lots of money, cultural capital, access to power, etc. But: not a dummy.
-
-
@Mabande oh dear. And she has been trained to think critically?
@Kierkegaanks At least about other people's statements, not her own (nor her creation)!
-
@Kierkegaanks At least about other people's statements, not her own (nor her creation)!
@Mabande i understand the computer interface so it must be sentient!
-
@Mabande If I assume competence, I'm left with no alternative but to deduce that Amanda is cynically pumping the grift.
-
R ActivityRelay shared this topic
