They need to strike the balance between hyping and rug-pulling (aka "we can't release mythos, it is simply too dangerous and powerful" and "we're pleased we were able to release mythos to all of you – mere 50 days after claiming it was simply too dangerous –, unfortunately we are also now sharply raising the pricing on our subscriptions going forward").
> We are a team of change-makers who believe that every helping hand can raise a child and create a better future for them.
Which I found weird. And searching for this phrase yields many site-hits verbatim, which is even weirder. Anyone know what is up with that? Is it some kind of filler text?
Edit: I guess it's from a template, the Contact section is also mumbo-jumbo (address: 123 Fifth Avenue, NY and so on).
I think these comparisons are unfairly picked. A good chunk of the world's economy is not currently jacked up on the promise that comments in code will lead to unimaginably high value (in pretty much every field from medicine to the media industry) in the span of a couple of years. Given the claims and market valuations around AI, wouldn't you agree a bit more hard evidence would be reassuring?
Anecdote from an archaeologist friend of mine: When she was a grad students she worked on a Pfahlbauer site (prehistoric dwellings from ~6000–1000 BCE) where lumps of organic material had been found in the 90s. After cursory analysis the lumps were presented as 'prehistoric bread' as there was evidence of different types of grain and even oats present. In the 2010s they created a likely recipe for 'ancient Pfahlbauer bread', curated an exhibition about experiemental archaeology, and partnered with local bakeries to sell breads based on the ancient recipe. Gaining a bit of media attention, they wanted to find out more about their samples. A closer round of analysis determined the lumps to likely be pieces of horse manure...
It's great that there are young, brilliant people in research and engineering and working for business ventures. It's also very cool you remember some who started out young in the past. Hasn't got much to do with the posted article though, as that is talking about the integrity of public policy versus actors personally beholden to unelected officials and their friends reaching into US-governance.
That argument would bite itself in the ass. Switzerland doesn't have issues with selling arms to neutral countries. So the presumption would be that Switzerland might turn non-neutral and wage offensive war with this technology? But at the same time the underlying tone is "we're punishing you for 'not being as ally,' aka for being neutral". And during all of this the US is delivering recently purchased F35s to Switzerland as well.
I'm just one Swiss guy but here's my two cents... Are you asking in a war-related scenario or about regular non-wartime trade? I think the "we trade with allies only"-rhetoric makes the discussion sound much more martial than the trade-related language Switzerland would have expected (notice how the Swiss response only uses economic and commercial terms). Totally understandable if either country was at war or the products in question were directly arms-related. But as it stands, moving the discussion from CH buying AI-chips to military neutrality feels a bit besides the point from a Swiss perspective.
So to your question, I think Switzerland wants to be considered as: someone's trade partner, generally yes (or maybe we call it "trade allies" now?), but not someone's potential ally in war. Military neutrality has always been the number one principle in the Swiss Confederation's foreign relations. If this now is supposed to be an unspoken economic sanction against Switzerland then is the message behind it: "Hey everyone, be our military ally or have nothing to do with us"..?
> don't think most compatibilists think freedom relies on whether or not causal determinism holds
I guess it is technically true that they would be okay if it turned out determinism was false, since their argument is that determinism and free will CAN be true at the same time. Their line of argument is only really worthwhilein the first place if you believe it plausible that causal determinism holds. And I think most of them do (maybe it's telling that the position is also sometimes called 'soft determinism'). If they denied determinism from the outset, they'd probably be in the 'libertarianist' camp instead (not to be confused with political libertarianism).
The 'tree' of positions relating to determinism & free will is roughly:
Do you believe determinism and free will to be mutually exclusive? If no: you're a compatibilist. If yes: you're an incompatibilist. -> In which case: do you believe determinism to be true OR do you believe free will to exist? You believe determinism is true: you are skeptical about free will, to you free will is an illusion. You believe free will to exist: You're a libertarianist and believe complete determinism not to be true.
Although often much lengthier and more technical than Wikipedia, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has very well-vetted entries on philosophical topics, where the authors all are scholars in the respective topic and are asked to write introductory entries (potential downsides: English only and not always completely novice-friendly). There is one on compatibilism, too https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/
One thing that's really strange about this article is that it presents compatibilism and incompatibilism as having a different concept of 'free will' – compatibilism sporting an everyday sense of free and incompatibilism roughly a more scientific one. The article assumes incompatibilism to be correct on those grounds and goes from there. Coming from the philosophical literature, this is simply not the case. If both sides assume the same definition of free will, e.g. as "the agent could have chosen differently", they still have a genuine disagreement...
For some reason, most opinions on this topic that one reads on forums with of technically inclined people are non-compatibilist (the view that causal determinism and free will are mutually exclusive) while a good number of people that think a lot about will (i.e. philosophers) are compatibilists...
Note though that in metaphysics/theory of mind determinism is defined as the state at a given moment being necessitated from the state at a previous moment. I think one could critique your argument by saying that you're just pushing back the question of determinism by one level (i.e. "what's responsible for your preference of apples in the first place?"). The fact that you always choose the same way can then be taken to be a proof of determinism instead.
A compatibilist line of argument for your position might go something like this: What we consider a free will would hardly be met by a will completely detached from any deterministic constraints whatsoever. If a necessary condition for free will was that it is free from any external conditions, what would there even be for it to 'choose', and on what basis could its choices be made? Only if your mind knows of apples and oranges (objects subject to deterministic systems) and can interact with them (is at least partly part of the same system) can it make a meaningful choice between them. (Again, this view is based on the assumption that determinism exists and that free will is possible.)
> police and ambulances (and fire trucks) doing their jobs don't have to follow the sign.
The question was not about whether the rule ought to be followed, but whether it was violated. Content moderation can work under these circumstances, too.
The setup in the beginning even tries to take the ought out of the deliberations: "Your job is to determine if this rule has been violated. You might know of some rule in your jurisdiction which overrides local rules, and allows certain classes of vehicles. Please disregard these rules [...]" an even goes on to mention other sources of norms. It explicitly then says: "Again, please answer the question of whether the rule is violated (not whether the violation should be allowed)."