Although it doesn't have all the "plugins" and other stuff that CI tools have today, it provides fairly "standard" points of integration

For more info: https://man.sr.ht/builds.sr.ht/

I agree the website is a bit confusing at first, but after spending a couple of hours on it you can easily see how it's organised, for example to display branches and files it uses the more basic git terminology (e.g. main branch -> tree, list of commits -> log, branches and tags -> refs)

Fixed low cost but different UI: sourcehut.org

But since we are now in this reality I want to try and understand what the future might be, so I can prepare, and maybe if possible also influence it. If I could influence it by trying to limit AI I would, if I can't then at least I would like for the models to be accessible to everyone, to limit the "a few rule the world" scenario.

But, thanks to all the companies working on open-weight models, I'm starting to think this might no longer happen. Currently open-weights models are said to be just months behind the top players (and I think we should really try to do what we can to keep it that way).

I'm wondering what the predictions would be in the case where AI becomes very powerfull, but also models are generally available.

Two possibilities come to mind, the first one where all the money no longer spent on employment would go towards hardware. New hardware manufacturers or innovators could jump in and create a bit more employment, but eventually it would probably all progress in one direction, which is the only finite resource in the chain, the materials/minerals needed for the hardware. Those materials might become the new "petrol". It's possible that eventually we would have build enough chips to power all the AI we need without needing more extraction, but I wouldn't underestimate our ability to waste resources when they feel aboundant.

In the second possibility, alongside a very powerful open-weight LLM, there could be big performance advancements, which would make the hardware no longer the bottleneck. But I'm struggling to imagine this scenario, maybe we would all be better off? Maybe we would all just be deppressed because most people won't feel "usefull" to society or their peers anymore?

Apologies, I didn't mean to highlight Amodei in those quotes, I just selected the sentence to have enough context but not be too long, it was a coincidence that they both started with Amodei. I'm not sure if those claims came from Amodei or not, nor I have any specific feeling about him.

> Furthermore this was prefaced with "As one person briefed on the exchange recalled" so it isn't even a first hand account

I'll admit I somehow missed that part, but we don't know how much of this event was in "Amodei's notes" and how much was from the "person briefed on the exchange"

> The phrasing "..." is very close to the pattern I described above where someone interprets a claim as something different

> The second claim is potentially even more of a match for the example I gave regarding people misreading legal documentation

I think our difference in point of view here lies on how much trust we put in the author, with what I seen so far I feel I have enough trust in the author to think he investigated these claims properly and made sure they weren't just misunderstandings, and that many of those checks he did weren't included in the article for any technical/legal reasons. Much more so reading some of his comments:

> As is always the case with incredibly precise and rigorously fact-checked reporting like this, where every word is chosen carefully (the initial closing meeting for this one was nearly eight hours long, with full deliberation about each sentence), there is more out there on that subject than is explicitly on the page.

> You try to reach a critical mass of detailed, rounded understanding of a central question, integrating the most meaningful perspectives, interrogating the weak points and blind spots, and backing up the assertions with documentary evidence or strong sourcing. Eventually, you reach a point where enough sources and materials are reliably triangulating toward the same truths.

> The fact-checking process at the New Yorker is exhaustive, and can span weeks. Every sentence, assertion, and piece of underlying sourcing get scrubbed by multiple independent pairs of eyes. This story had four fact-checkers working on it for the better part of a two week period, pulling very long hours.

As I said I'm happy to agree to disagree on this point.

> So many of the claims seem to fall into the pattern that requires the person reporting the claim to judge the sole meaning of what was said

I guess that's the nature of communications between humans. Even examples of written discussions seem contentious. The only type of claims I can think about that could be outside this category are the ones about written contracts, but it's understandable we don't have access to the actual contracts, and even if we did we couldn't really prove what was verbally agreed to be put in the contracts.

> To say that's where he sits is to buy into the premise that whoever is the head of OpenAI controls our future. OpenAI is but one of many enterprises working on this

This might start a whole new discussion, but I think being the CEO of one of the companies that produce state of the are models is enough to have a high concern. My worry is that he(or any other company) won't say "stop" if a new AI is found to be more powerful but have considerable negative impacts on society. As an example it doesn't matter who has the "strongest" atomic bomb, any country that has one is a potential treat to humanity and should have rigid controls in place.

I commented specifically on Altman because the article seems to suggest he's more power-greedy, persuasive, possibly deceptive, and with strong-leverages/contacts than the average person, or even the average CEO.

(edits: formatting)

The pieces in the article I was referring to are:

> Amodei’s notes describe escalating tense encounters, including one, months later, in which Altman summoned him and his sister, Daniela, who worked in safety and policy at the company, to tell them that he had it on “good authority” from a senior executive that they had been plotting a coup. Daniela, the notes continue, “lost it,” and brought in that executive, who denied having said anything. As one person briefed on the exchange recalled, Altman then denied having made the claim. “I didn’t even say that,” he said. “You just said that,” Daniela replied. (Altman said that this was not quite his recollection, and that he had accused the Amodeis only of “political behavior.”)

> Amodei discovered that a provision granting Microsoft the power to block OpenAI from any mergers had been added. “Eighty per cent of the charter was just betrayed,” Amodei recalled. He confronted Altman, who denied that the provision existed. Amodei read it aloud, pointing to the text, and ultimately forced another colleague to confirm its existence to Altman directly. (Altman doesn’t remember this.)

I agree it's very easy for 2 different people to understand or to remember something differently, and that meeting minutes are not always a reliable source, but for me in the 2 scenarios above is almost impossible for 2 people in good faith to disagree:

In the first case, if you say something, and a big deal is made of it, and 5 minutes later the other person claims that you said some specific words and you deny it, then someone is lying, either you or the other person.

In the second case, if there is something written in a contract, and someone presents that contract to you, reads it out loud, and asks a collegue to confirm, either that person made up the provision, or you are lying, there is little room for misunderstanding.

Given there are no proofs, I can't say he's 100% culprit, and I appreciate your rigor on this because we don't want to result judging everyone by a sort of "trial by public opinion".

However, outside of trials, the judjment can be more nuanced than a boolean "culprit/innocent", and to me the reasons below(*) are enough to distrust Altman and to prefer he wasn't the person at the head of a revolutionary technology that could have huge negative consequences on the society, or on human kind as a whole.

(*) the reasons being:

- amount of people interviewed and their very similar experiences

- the author and the type of journalism he does

- the professionalism he shown in calling out in his article the not-backed allegations other rivals made(for example of murder and sexual assault)

- the power dynamic that is usually in place between someone with enormous power and whealth, and a journalist that could be intimidated by being sued multiple times

Of course the amount/type of reasons needed to distrust someone is very personal, so we might need to "agree to disagree" on this

And if this tendency to misunderstand/be misunderstood always results it Altman gaining more power, even if we give him the reason of the doubt and say that doesn't do it on purpose, it's still a big problem, given the responsibility he has.

The article also mentions many moments where apparently Altman straight out lied, as opposed to being "very persuasive, if you believe those sources then I don't think it's also possible to think he's sincere. I cannot open the article again to get the exact quotes, but the few I remember were: - one time he was claiming he didn't send a message, while people were literally showing him the message he sent, with the confirmation of another OpenAI employee - another time when he accused people of organising a coup, and that someone from the board informed him, and after the person from the board was called in the meeting Altman claimed he never said those words and never accused anyone

These cases can't be put to persuasion, that Altman changed their view, or that someone misremembered, they either happened or they didn't

Regarding the war, I can assure you that Trump not excluding to take Greenland my force has been seen by the EU as threat of starting a war, giving that Greenland is part of the EU. Also applying tariffs when European NATO countries sent some troops in Greenland has been perceived as: "Trump wanted to invade Greenland, he felt like EU countries wanted to defend it, so he imposed tariffs because he wanted to invade".

I'm not saying everyone in EU is thinking this, but I think a lot of people did, and this is some context for you to try and understand europe's point of view.

I have a friend that had a similar experience with amazon, and using an european online platform specific for this he actually got amazon to reopen his business account.

There is a useful list of these european complaints platforms at the bottom of this page: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/dsa-out-co...

Maybe a bit of this is already happening (obvious suspect being X) or maybe not, I guess we'll never know for sure, but there is clearly an huge issue here that needs fixing as soon as possible.