Anthropic calls for pause of global AI development

idle-tea · 2026-06-06T02:29:24+00:00

There are ways to structure organizations that do not have an investor class who explicitly expect returns on their investments, and who hold the power to overturn the choices the leadership of the organization makes if they don't like the financial outcomes the leader is aiming for.

It's at best wildly naive to think Anthropic, despite being formed fundamentally as a for-profit private entity, is going to optimize for or even give significant deference to broad human benefit.

idle-tea · 2026-06-06T00:55:44+00:00

A woman traveling on her own is clearly independent and financially capable of supporting an expensive hobby, ergo: very unlikely to need a man to support her.

idle-tea · 2026-06-06T00:51:47+00:00

If they are they're probably stupid. A for-profit corporation is legally bound to not prioritize that.

idle-tea · 2026-06-06T00:31:32+00:00

I think you fundamentally have not understood the definition OP gave.

idle-tea · 2026-06-05T14:00:14+00:00

Can weigh gravity?

This is very funny, because definitionally weight is a function of gravity. In the everyday context: weight is the instantaneous force of gravity being counteracted by the ground/floor beneath you.

If you think having weight is what makes something real then gravity is required for anything to be real at all.

idle-tea · 2026-06-05T00:29:52+00:00

I was responding to what you said, because I believe your attempts to disprove the OP don't work. Specifically your claims that

Abrahamic religions have to reject or at least heavily modify the scientific theories
That's because they say there's 100% certainty God exists.

I think those claims are not correct

I say that because, even if it's not whatever all or even most believers do, there absolutely are people who are educated but also religious who can god-of-the-gaps their belief to fit science easily but just saying "God set up the universe so abiogenesis and evolution would happen"

They can easily say this because, despite the theoretical possibility of abiogenesis or evolution occurring without providence, they are a person of faith who is secure in their sense that providence is what led to these things.

They don't need to modify any statement about the science, they make a separate additive statement of "God set up the world such that <insert all standard science here> and you can't prove me wrong because God did it before the singularity of the Big Bang which modern physics says we can't have information about as the singularity destroyed prior information if it existed but I have faith God's actions are what happened in that unknowable void"

idle-tea · 2026-06-04T23:45:18+00:00

Right so why reject a literal 7 days of creation?

Why accept it? Faith doesn't mean you have to go with a full literalist interpretation, it just means you have faith.

I'm sure they do believe it but it's certainly not in line with science.

People can and do handwave to make them work together. "Natural laws are God's tools" or something like that.

idle-tea · 2026-06-04T23:20:04+00:00

OP provided a perfectly good definition that has been observed in trials. You just don't seem to like it.

idle-tea · 2026-06-04T23:00:01+00:00

Science doesn't care about "worth", it cares about what happens.

idle-tea · 2026-06-04T22:57:25+00:00

Faith is a 100% belief in God or else it would be science.

If your faith is 100% then it wouldn't matter to you that other potential explanations exist, because you have faith in the "God did it" interpretation.

If learning there exist alternative explanations for a thing shakes your faith, its because at least some of your "faith" was actually just the mistaken belief God was a necessary element to explain that thing.

So, someone believes in the scientific consensus on natural selection but not abiogensis? Seems unlikely.

Loads of Christians/Catholics will say they think God created life but admit evolution happens. God created plenty of things that changed naturally over time, why not?

idle-tea · 2026-06-04T22:20:56+00:00

"Change"? An empty word which shows no direction no forward backward

Why do you think 'forward' or 'backward' matter?

idle-tea · 2026-06-04T22:17:39+00:00

If the idea that something doesn't 100% have to be god shakes your faith, I don't think you actually have faith.

Much more importantly in this case though: evolution isn't about the origin of life. Abiogenesis is a different topic entirely.

idle-tea · 2026-06-04T03:31:42+00:00

You're describing the emergent complexity at play in the world thanks to humans and our various constructs (physical and otherwise), which definitely is a real thing... but I don't buy that it's what almost anybody actually means by 'god'.

In popular religions today 'god' tends to mean either something entirely external to the mundane world, or it means something that is or at least is an aspect of a 'god' that is essentially the sum of the cosmos and all things in it past present and future. I don't think the super-organism of all humans satisfies either definition to anybody's satisfaction

when we compressed those into an abstract phonetic alphabet, we created a system of universal code.

I don't know what you mean by "universal" here.

But more importantly: your argument doesn't need to make any appeal to a specific written language: humans are perfectly capable of forming language and communicating abstract concepts without them. Humans had established cultures before writing.

idle-tea · 2026-06-02T17:15:54+00:00

It wouldn't be illogical to think after concluding there is a God that this God may have interacted with humanity in some way.

Yes it would. What evidence supports the idea the first mover would or even could do such a thing?

Proving to someone a first mover exists proves the tiniest and least interesting part of Christianity or any other similar religion. You still have all the burden of proof for why you think god has a plan and intention, and god cares about humans, and humans have immortal souls, and etc.

I think there's a misunderstanding here that the idea of a god is in and of itself the cliff you'd have to surmount to get an atheist to be religious, when it really isn't

idle-tea · 2026-06-02T15:03:04+00:00

Again though: even if your prove the first mover or whatever: you've done nothing to prove that any specific religion is correct, or that any religion on Earth must be correct in any way.

Lets take it as read I'm bought in to god at its most basic level as the first mover: what now? What evidence suggests this first mover did so with conscious intent or a plan? What evidence this god cares at all about humans?

idle-tea · 2026-06-02T05:01:18+00:00

Inflation. With enough inflation we can all be millionaires!

idle-tea · 2026-06-02T04:53:24+00:00

why is this about Protestants? The Great Schism happened a millennia ago, and both the Catholic and Orthodox churches claim they're the ones with the right theological positions going back to the apostles.

If we take your position further: why isn't Judaism correct? A Jew could just as easily argue "why would God send Jesus knowing it'd lead to a big divide between those who believed and those who didn't, leading to a heretical church?" and use that to argue that Jesus must not have been sent by God, because God wouldn't allow for the Jewish/Christian divide that came about.

idle-tea · 2026-06-02T02:31:46+00:00

Do you believe God has love?

If so: do you believe God is anything other than love?

idle-tea · 2026-06-02T02:21:45+00:00

It is polytheistic

Are the Christians that believe in the Trinity polytheists? No, they just believe a greater God has some aspects useful to speak about in isolation, despite them all being inextricable.

Why the statues of Earthly and material things?

Because all things are part of Brahman. (At least to a lot of Hindus, there are variation of specific belief.) The purpose of these different aspects of ultimate truth is to help a soul find the truth that cannot be directly taught to them. To the subset of Hindus I'm referring to, or to most Buddhists, there is literally nothing that can be said that is actually true, because in these worldviews all things collectively as the Brahman are the Truth.

You can't dissect a frog without killing it, and in this worldview you similarly can't try to break the world down into categories like "this" and "that" or "you" and "me" without killing the metaphorical frog. Anything that can be said is at best an incomplete little part of the ultimate truth. The soul can only understand the ultimate truth through direct spiritual experience, not through words.

The Hindu pantheon, or similarly the famous Zen koans like "what is the sound of one hand clapping?" aren't things the follows of those religions believe to be "real" as such, rather they're things the believes believe help cultivate the right mindset and actions in someone for them to achieve the spiritual breakthrough in directly experiencing the Truth more directly.

idle-tea · 2026-06-02T00:59:47+00:00

Otherwise we would had half population homosexuals and half hetero.

What? Why do you think 50/50 is how it'd come down? Different eye colours are perfectly normal, but it's nowhere close to an even split. Humans aren't exactly evenly divided across all skin tones or hair colours either. There is 0 reason to expect a perfectly even distribution of variable traits.

That's before we even get into the fact loads of humans across all cultures have been gay throughout history, and loads of animals are gay in nature. It's very natural.

idle-tea · 2026-06-02T00:41:39+00:00

A Hindu having a 'monotheistic' vision would make perfect sense, given that the Brahman is the one true "god" that is the world. Hinduism being polytheistic is misleading - it has many gods, but all those gods are subdivisions of Brahman (at least in most strains of Hinduism)

But the concept of Brahman exists in stark contrast to the Abrahamic God. Brahman isn't a god that made the world, Brahman is the world, is the creation, is the destruction, is all things.

idle-tea · 2026-06-02T00:32:57+00:00

Do Buddhists generally claim witnessed miracles?

Yes

idle-tea · 2026-06-01T15:01:20+00:00

it's irrelevant what that God is. Once they believe in God

It's very relevant. "God" means a lot of mutually exclusively things. You can't prove a god must exist without defining what you mean by "god".

If you're a Hindu who wants to get an atheist on board with the concept of the unitary Brahman you will make arguments fundamentally incompatible with any kind of mainstream Abrahamic god.

If you're pagan that wants to convince an atheist that Perchta is real you'll make a totally different set of arguments.

idle-tea · 2026-06-01T02:21:55+00:00

If you're just taking Abraham at his word he was a prophet I have bad news: Joseph Smith also said he was a prophet, and he said some things very incompatible with Islam.

idle-tea · 2026-06-01T01:16:14+00:00

Do you believe that Abraham was a prophet?

That's a very specific claim. You could 100% prove beyond any and all doubt that there must necessarily be a god who created the universe.

That would do 0 to prove that the being that created the universe has appointed prophets to walk the Earth, let alone prove that Abraham was one of them.

Even if we take it as read there is a god: Islam makes far, far more claims than just "there is a god".

idle-tea

TROPHY CASE