You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Please sit down with a pen and paper for at least 15 minutes and consider each of the following claims to the best of your ability:
It is wiser and more ethical to not use AI to improve AI capabilities.
Given some degree of agency and ability, it is our responsibility to help improve ourselves, our families, and/or our local communities, as best we can.
The above point is a great start. If enough of us do this, we can help nudge the world in a better direction.
We want humans to better understand each other and to solve problems peacefully.
We want humans to make better decisions.
The current AI labs do not have their safety pratices under sufficient control. Anthropic might have a better safety track record at present, and this is good, but no current labs are taking safety seriously enough.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Below the --- divider below you will find a section that I agree with but Claude Opus 4.7 drafted. I don't just use LLMs to tell me what I want to hear, and I don't casually dump their outputs into the public sphere. I gave the early drafts LOTS of pushback and guidance.
Why? I'm beyond tired of sloppy thinking. I'm tired of post-hoc rationalization. So much that I'm pretty much done with Hacker News and Lobsters. These are places where good reasoning goes to die, but too few admit it.
Enjoy! ... but first, I wrote my own prefatory rant for your consideration.
A map of privacy-preserving telemetry, from randomized response to OHTTP
Generated by Claude Opus 4.7 on April 22, 2026.
A map of privacy-preserving telemetry, from randomized response to OHTTP
When a vendor says "we don't collect any personally identifiable information," what did they actually build? The honest answer, across two decades of deployed systems, ranges from "nothing at all, they just stripped the obvious identifiers" to "a multi-party cryptographic protocol with published epsilon budgets and open-source code running in trusted enclaves." This survey is a field guide to the territory between those extremes — the deployed systems you will run into by name, and the formal guarantee types that those systems do or do not meet.
Three things make this landscape hard for a newcomer. First, the same marketing words — "anonymous," "aggregated," "privacy-preserving" — get used for mechanisms that differ by many orders of magnitude in strength. Second, the strongest guarantees are conditional on assumptions (non-collusion, trusted hardware, crypto hardness, client hones
NASA Force - compressed hiring window, third-party sign up list
NASA Force: Notes on a Compressed Hiring Window and a Third-Party Signup List
April 17, 2026
(This document was generated by Claude Opus 4.7 on 2026-04-17.)
On April 17, 2026, NASA's first "NASA Force" opportunity opened on USAJOBS with a closing date of April 21 — a four-day public application window. NASA Force was announced on March 4, 2026 as a dedicated talent track within OPM's US Tech Force initiative, aimed at placing engineers and technologists into term appointments supporting NASA's exploration, research, and advanced technology priorities.
The rollout raises two distinct questions worth separating: (1) whether the four-day window is a fairness problem, and (2) whether the Constant Contact signup list used to notify interested applicants is legally compliant.