I don't like Elon Musk.
I don't like Grok or xAI. Or X. Or Twitter before.
I also don't like articles that try to bias readers with irrelevant details:
> This includes Grok, which has thus far been involved in controversies including but not limited to:
> Spreading antisemitic slurs and conspiracies while calling itself "Mecha-Hitler"
> Creating widespread non-consensual nude images of primarily women and children
> Acting as a mouthpiece for Elon's racist belief in South African white genocide
I stopped reading right there.
Hardly irrelevant. The purpose is establishing a pattern of abusive behavior so this can't be dismissed as a "misunderstanding".
Then show me a pattern of flouting regulations (which I can easily believe he has). His terrible views on unrelated issues are irrelevant.
This is being needlessly pedantic. Disdain for the rights of other people does not start and end at literal written regulations.
And yeah, on some level it's not strictly relevant to the exact legal question being discussed, but part of the purpose of an article is to give you reasons to give a shit about what's being reported.
> but part of the purpose of an article is to give you reasons to give a shit about what's being reported.
And this is where the article is trying to bias the readers.
As I said elsewhere: If this article was "Elon Musk is a shitty guy, and look at all the shitty stuff he does", I'd have no objection to any of this. Present all the examples, make the case, and let the reader decide.
But showing someone violating the law, and then pointing out possible other unrelated violations, you're trying to bias the reader.
If this were on trial and I were on the jury, and the prosecutor used such tactics, I'd be biased against the prosecution. There's a very good reason defense attorneys get judges to rule that such stuff can not be presented to the jurors.
So nobody can report facts if it makes the subject of an article look bad (or good)? This idea of unbiased reporting that you have is ridiculous. This isn't a court of law, and not everything needs to rise to that standard.
If you want something free of bias, go read an NTSB report. Even then, that's not a guarantee!!
Stories that involve peoples' motivations and politics are never free of bias. The fact that you think this is possible might betray some bias of your own.
What evidence is there of Musk's competency? Actual testimony that he has provided input that has led to revenue (or some more indirect form of success)? We can all hold and spend money; I'll admit his purchase of SpaceX was intelligent. But outside of that one decision, where is his supposed genius?
> What evidence is there of Musk's competency?
Why are you asking me? What makes you think I suggested he is competent? What does your question have to do with this whole conversation?
The things you're calling irrelevant actually flout a number of regulations in various jurisdictions, if your read news about xAI you should be familiar with the examples.
> The things you're calling irrelevant actually flout a number of regulations in various jurisdictions
Elon (or Grok) espousing racist views is not flouting data center related regulations. His business practices are.
you don’t think “Creating widespread non-consensual nude images of primarily women and children“ is illegal somewhere/anywhere?
> you don’t think “Creating widespread non-consensual nude images of primarily women and children“ is illegal somewhere/anywhere?
Are you reading any of my comments? I'm having trouble tying your question to anything I've said so far.
>flouting regulations.
That's the topic here. You don't think someone flouting regulations on distribution of internet content won't flout data center regulations?
> You don't think someone flouting regulations on distribution of internet content won't flout data center regulations?
You don't think someone flouting the speed limit laws won't flout online content regulations?
Yes, I in fact do. Same mentality. "It's only 5 above that's legal", "what use is 6 miles above".
It just creeps in and next thing you know you're complaining about a ticket despite going 15 above. "But everyone else is doing it". No self-reflection, only deflection.
We used to have a factor called "work ethic" to judge people on because once upon a time we recognized that such behavior is contagious. In both good and bad ways. A hard worker will probably pick up an adjacent job quickly. A slacker who otherwise gets stuff done is less likely to. This behavior is no different.
Why would these be irrelevant when they're examples of Musk biasing the LLM? Do you think these things came out of nowhere?
Correct me if I'm wrong: Is the article about a badly acting LLM?
Just because the machinery in the building grinds puppies into pulp doesn't mean the building itself is bad. I don't get what the big problem is!
Pretty bad analogy. The building is violating some laws. The laws being violated are unrelated to potential other laws being violated.
If I own a house and am not paying property taxes on it, the fact that I'm murdering people in that house is irrelevant.
Interesting, you encounter a fact you don’t like and just quit reading all together. What a curious way to engage with the world.
I'll bite. The title is about ignoring regulations related to a data center. How is any of what I quoted relevant?
If the article were about Elon Musk's racist views, then by all means I'd be fine with it. But his (or Grok's) racism is irrelevant to the laws he is violating. Would it be OK if a well respected billionaire flouted those laws?
You don't think it's relevant to discuss what has been done with the resources from breaking these regulations? I think it's very relevant to the article. If this was about building illegal gas turbines to power cancer research, I think you would have a different perspective on the article.
I already addressed that here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49202037
And yes, I would be equally critical of any article that talks about someone violating laws with their data center, and that tries to list the positives coming out of the data center as a mitigating factor. It isn't one.
Not really, its a valid way to manage ones time, because if you deem the message to not be I the quality you expect, you can just find a better article.
Sure, but you can hardly expect to interact with the world in a rational way if you explicitly decide to ignore it
There is plenty of the world that doesn't behave this way.
Flipping it around: Can you tell me why I need to interact with such articles? What did I lose by not reading it? I can certainly tell you what I gained.
Look at this statement from the article:
>These racks are needed to keep up with the ballooning requirements of each new "frontier" (a buzzword label with no actual inclination of performance of improvement) model developed, which everyone bought into the AI hype will immediately hop to because it's all novelty over utility.
This is a mind-blowingly clueless assertion. This is not a person capable of rationally assessing facts. At best this kind of writing is interesting as an artifict of human delusion and cognitive bias.
> This is a mind-blowingly clueless assertion. This is not a person capable of rationally assessing facts. At best this kind of writing is interesting as an artifict of human delusion and cognitive bias.
How do you figure? This description would be best applied to you:
* Musk both wildly wealthy because of his popularity and simultaneously incompetent
* Musk and other investors have made boatloads of money off the promise that specifically american, boutique LLMs will deliver labor savings. in his case spaces, but it's indistinguishable from similar frauds such as eg openai, anthropic, etc
* Musk's properties will likely collapse unless they can find new revenue or investors.
Musk can only grift so many people before his bottom falls out
Should people disengage with Hn because they don't like your opinion?
> Should people disengage with Hn because they don't like your opinion?
Neither I, nor the person you're responding to (tommica) suggested anything of the sort.
Was part of this incorrect?
I never claimed it was. Are you willing to read pointless stuff just because it's accurate?
What part offended you? The statement of fact?
The statement of irrelevant facts.
It's like criticizing Stallman's hygiene. Who cares?
> Creating widespread non-consensual nude images of primarily women and children
That is an example of ignoring laws and regulations. So that is certainly relevant as context to the current case where the company is ignoring laws and regulations.
> That is an example of ignoring laws and regulations.
OK. Let me ask you: Is the article about those laws and regulations?
I'm well aware of all these problems. They are simply not relevant to data center violations.
Again: Stallman having bad hygiene is irrelevant to whether his opinions on various matters is problematic.
Many such cases
Hard to call them "irrelevant details" when they are facts, and that this data center is specifically used to run this AI for anti-semitic, pro-Hitler, and CSAM content. It would be bad enough if the data center was used to research cures to cancer, but instead it is creating nudes of children.
Facts and "irrelevant details" are not mutually exclusive.
> It would be bad enough if the data center was used to research cures to cancer, but instead it is creating nudes of children.
Sorry, but what it is being used for is irrelevant to whether it is flouting the laws.
As I said in my original comment, the reason I stopped reading was because the language was trying to bias readers. And as the responses show, they sure as Hell did.
It seems critical reading is becoming a lost skill.
The applications are not tangential, they're an irreplaceable tool the hyperscalers relied on to get us where we are now. Pollution is bad but it's a different story if it's curing cancer vs making nudes of female politicians. This is like the fundamental principle of effective altruism, which everyone in tech industry leadership used to justify their negative externalities on the way up. Now that they're being asked to show results it's out the window.
I mean, that's the good faith argument anyways. I suspect you don't actually care, and just also believe in South African white genocide etc.
> Pollution is bad but it's a different story if it's curing cancer vs making nudes of female politicians.
Completely disagree. That sort of reasoning is why plenty of African Americans were forcibly moved from their own properties in the 20th century. "The land will be put to great use!" (And in a lot of cases, it was - still wrong).
(I also disagree, I'm just using it to argue with the guy above claiming it's irrelevant)
Within your metaphor, the person I'm replying to would say "I did nothing to stop the land theft because I found it annoying how people made irrelevant arguments about what the land would be used for". Really calls into question if their real position is what they say it is.
> Within your metaphor, the person I'm replying to would say "I did nothing to stop the land theft because I found it annoying how people made irrelevant arguments about what the land would be used for". Really calls into question if their real position is what they say it is.
You can introduce that person to the concept of "strawman".
Not reading an article does not equate to any of the following: Support, Opposition, Neutrality, Apathy, Indifference.
I stopped at "f*ck*ss". Irreverent drivel is unserious and a waste of time.
This isn't a formal publication. This is the type of post that used to be celebrated in hacker culture. The type of post that purposefully flounders respectability politics even if it's just for aesthetic forms of rebellion. Clearly it's offending the type of people it meant to :)
That's some form of success.