I sympathize with the cynicism in your last paragraph, but I push a little optimism back on a couple points. 1: our capability for speech may be limited by the corporations who have grabbed control over our media platforms, but insofar as freedom of speech refers to our ability to speak freely without retaliation from the government, we do still have real free speech. It's a juvenile point, but given events in the last few years it's not a right I take for granted as I did previously. That being said, I did just watch a video of FBI agents interrogating a woman in front of her house for posting non-violent content on Facebook relating to Gaza that you can add to a pile of evidence that the government is frequently toeing the line on free speech, so... that's not good.

2: Regulatory authority has become almost laughably meek, granted, but you're commenting on a video of one of the most aggressive regulators to hold the position in as long as I'm aware. This is a powerful sign that regulatory capture is not inevitable if we care enough to vote for candidates who will appoint strong regulators -- even if it hurts our pride to do so (<<conscientious vote objectors).

So many layers.

They've got a really talented bench of people, I'm surprised this has gone on so long (though I am far from a regular viewer). My vote would have gone to Jordan Klepper, who I think has both the intelligence and sincere anger that made Jon Stewart the cultural force he was on the show. My theory is that the execs saw him as too much of a risk after his previous (unfortunately) failed solo outings.

First two books in the series were "Fellowship of the King" and "The Two Trees" so...I'm not entirely convinced they were even very original stories...

One of the earliest pieces of media I can remember consuming was the mid-90s TV show Viper, where James played the main character. I remember very little about the show except James's face and that he played his character cool as fuck.

I've been replaying Alan Wake and Control recently, and I have such a soft spot for his roles in them because I loved that stupid show when I was a kid.

I wish media would give credit to the organization leaders responsible for these types of moves rather than crediting a homogeneous "Biden administration." The fact is that the administration does deserve credit for employing a number of "progressive" (read: competent) administrators, but those departments compose a progressive wing of the administration that is not on par with some of the overall administration's more centrist leanings.

Personnel are policy, something that the Biden administration has proved again and again since the 2020 election. Biden himself is a kind of empty vessel into which different wings of the Democratic party pour their will, yielding a strange brew of appointments both great and terrible.

-- Cory Doctorow

I...don't think that's what the referenced paper was saying. First of all, Toner didn't co-author the paper from her position as an OpenAI board member, but as a CSET director. Secondly, the paper didn't intend to prescribe behaviors to private sector tech companies, but rather investigate "[how policymakers can] credibly reveal and assess intentions in the field of artificial intelligence" by exploring "costly signals...as a policy lever."

The full quote:

By delaying the release of Claude until another company put out a similarly capable product, Anthropic was showing its willingness to avoid
exactly the kind of frantic corner-cutting that the release of ChatGPT appeared to spur. Anthropic achieved this goal by leveraging installment costs, or fixed costs that cannot be offset over time. In the framework of this study, Anthropic enhanced the credibility of its commitments to AI safety by holding its model back from early release and absorbing potential future revenue losses. The motivation in this case was not to recoup those losses by gaining a wider market share, but rather to promote industry norms and contribute to shared expectations around responsible AI development and deployment.

Anthropic is being used here as an example of "private sector signaling," which could theoretically manifest in countless ways. Nothing in the text seems to indicate that OpenAI should have behaved exactly this same way, but the example is held as a successful contrast to OpenAI's allegedly failed use of the GPT-4 system card as a signal of OpenAI's commitment to safety.

To more fully understand how private sector actors can send costly signals, it is worth considering two examples of leading AI companies going beyond public statements to signal their commitment to develop AI responsibly: OpenAI’s publication of a “system card” alongside the launch of its GPT-4 model, and Anthropic’s decision to delay the release of its chatbot, Claude.

Honestly, the paper seems really interesting to an AI layman like me and a critically important subject to explore: empowering policymakers to make informed determinations about regulating a technology that almost everyone except the subject-matter experts themselves will *not fully understand.

We replaced our HP OfficeJet with a Brother this year. I don't even know what we were thinking getting the HP 5 years ago or so, it was gross overkill for us. But of all the things it could do, it was most consistent with printing like shit and jamming paper. Part of the problem was that we just print too infrequently, but having to replace overpriced cartridges from HP didn't help. You also have to install apps for wireless printing (or if there's a workaround we didn't bother with it).

The Brother is a color laser printer and it's perfect for us. No apps needed, super quiet and hassle-free (there have been no paper jams or transmission errors), and the print quality is crisp as hell.

This selection is not good and completely fails to justify, again, the price hike (nothing specifically against the games themselves, but as a whole this selection is not indicative of $135 annual value). But I still love the ability to trial a bunch of games I certainly wouldn't commit to paying for in full.

I just finished BG3 for the second time, and coming out of that I wanted something shorter and more relaxed. So I tried Omno and enjoyed it fine. Kind of perfect for what I was looking for in that moment, but overall not hugely impressed. Tried Haven and dropped it after an hour. Finally tried Slay the Spire which I would never have paid for (never been a card game person) and am still interested after a couple hours. Also giving Sniper Elite 5 a shot, which I always misunderstood as like a Flight Simulator type game but for sniping. But it's pretty fun and reminds me a lot of PS3-era action games (e.g., The Saboteur, Splinter Cell: Conviction).

I can't do that kind of thing without a subscription, and I really enjoy being able to. But I also think the price hike is absurd and I hate being ripped off like this. I dunno, I'm conflicted.

Did Sony not know what games it had locked in for the rest of the year when it announced its price increase? Nothing against anyone excited for these games (I might play Mafia II eventually myself), but...the showcase title this week is a remaster of a 13-year-old game, accompanied by two decidedly middling selections (69 and 53 metacritic scores).

I am deeply unhappy with the scope of the price increase but have ultimately been leaning toward keeping my subscription because having so many indie titles at my disposal in the catalog has drastically changed what I choose to play for the better; I've spent so much time this year playing smaller games I wouldn't have ever paid attention to on my own. But Sony is really invested in pushing me in the other direction.

Not seeing good reasoning here. "Adjusting to market conditions" means they went as high as they believed they could bear, and the claim that they haven't raised prices in "many years" doesn't justify raising prices by $40 in one jump.

Lots of "consumers" this and that, as if we're all on board with the hikes because we just recognize so much value in the service.

I'm in favor. However, I think shuttering c/PS5 would be better than leaving it open/active if the intent is to consolidate and grow the community. A loosely moderated and largely disused secondary community will just draw some of that precious engagement away from c/Playstation. When the PS6 is announced it can be opened back up :-)