Ťhose are all technology variations of “automated web ui tests”, which is a subset of “automated ui tests”, which is itself almost (but not quite exactly) a subset of “automated user acceptance tests”, none of which are new categories.
"Terrorism” and "war crimes” are overlapping categories, and being done by something independently defined as a “terrorist group” isn’t what defines something as “terrorism”, rather doing terrorism is what makes a group a terrorist group.
How do rules that inhibit what AI can be sold on the US market (adding additional costs to trading in that market) do anything to inhibit a competing nation from reaching ASI first? Insofar as they inhibit anyone from reaching ASI, its firms whose primary commercial interest is selling AI services in the US market, not foreign threat actors except to the extent those two categories overlap.
> asking for domestic safety testing of frontier models only is not regulatory capture.
Yeah, asking for additional state-provided barriers to a market entry to a valuable market a provider already is one of a narrow few dominating only for firms that are a competitive threat is exactly regulatory capture.
> If it was just plain monetary concerns and sabotage of competitors I'd almost be fine with it, but it seems they actively want to monopolize most of human progress in their enlightened hands
But that is “plain monetary concerns and sabotage of competitors”, they are just more ambitious than most people doing sabotage of competitors in the fields they hope to dominate by that tactic.
> Does Amazon have a clause in their contracts that forbids data sharing with any and all third parties?
Well, for the services (including Bedrock, but presumably now excluding those particular Anthropic models) that they offer a HIPAA BAA covering, pretty much, if you enter a BAA with them.
> Over the past six months, there hasn’t been a single day where I’ve checked the HN Best RSS feed without seeing a post about how AI “writes bad code,” “introduces bugs,” “creates technical debt,” or something along those lines.
> I’ll probably make a lot of enemies by saying this, but do people realize that code is just a means to an end?
That’s literally the point. Those are all defects relative go the end served by code.
> Users don’t care whether the code was written by AI or by hand, or which framework you used. They care that the product works.
Code with bugs does not work. As you note, that is quite relevant to user’s concerns.
> Let’s face it: by the time I manually ship version 1.0 of a product, the AI-assisted version could have been deployed 10x faster.
We’re actually pretty much past the point where whether or not to use AI assistance at all is the issue usually being considered, the exact manner in which AI assistance is used is more likely to be the issue of concern, and the manners in which AI fails is quite relevant to that.
The anti-AI crowd doesn't care if AI creates bugs, they hate AI for being AI.
It’s the people trying to find the best way to use AI that care that—and under what circumstances—AI is prone to create bugs.
> At some point, execution speed starts to matter more than the elegance of the code.
At most one of the categories of issues you complained about relate to elegance of code, and that only is one possible sense of that category.
A company need not be a single product, and working in a worker-owned cooperative need not be a lifetime commitment to a single firm (though cooperatives ideally will have less turnover than firms owned by capital separated from labor.)
reply