The Exchanges

Every argument clarity score on this site is built from rows on this page. Each question and answer was assessed with names hidden, the host's own answers included, on four things from 1 to 5: directness (does it answer the question asked), coherence (do the ideas follow), precision (concrete details and clear references), compression (says a lot per word). The weighted mix (30/30/25/15) is the exchange score. A person's published score averages their exchange scores on raw tape only, at least 8 of them, shrunk toward the cohort mean. Full method →

Ben Thompson no published score: only 1 usable exchange on raw tape, and a fair score needs 8+ record → ← everyone

Every exchange below was scored with names hidden, four dimensions each from 1 to 5. An exchange's score is 0.30·directness + 0.30·coherence + 0.25·precision + 0.15·compression. The published score averages the raw tape exchange scores and shrinks small samples toward the cohort mean, so five great answers can't beat twenty good ones. Produced feed rows count only toward coarse estimates, never toward a full score.

clear all ✕
1exchanges match
1on raw tape
1redirected or not addressed
Redirected raw tape D 2 · C 4 · P 3 · Cm 3 3.00

Q and according to Emil, Dario was in a meeting and, and was busy, and wasn't really respecting the deadline, which maybe he felt was kind of artificial, but in hindsight now looks like it was a significant, because the Department of War was, you know, taking the, the, Uh, country into a conflict and wanted to know, hey, can we lean on one of our, one of our AI partners?

A I don't know. I mean, I, I think that seems pretty arbitrary to have cut, I mean, I'm hesitant to speculate. I don't know what was going on. I don't know the angles. I think, and that's why I didn't sort of delve too deeply into it, and I also think some of the specifics like this supply chain risk probably overbroad, and almost certainly the way it was stated in the tweet is definitely overbroad if you actually go and re-read the statute. I think the goal that I was, and again, this is where I wish I had sort of put more caveats to say, look, I'm not actually talking about all that stuff. I don't really care. I do care, but that's not the point of this article. The point of this article is there's all this talk about alignment. That's why I put that in, in the headline. And On one hand, alignment is aligning AI with humanity generally, but for the foreseeable future, and you could have a philosophical argument about the long-term viability of nation states in the age of the internet, much less the age of AI and whatever that might be, that certainly is, you know, a more pressing conversation than probably ever before. Anthropic exists in the context of the United States, and That's why I put that quote, you may not be interested in politics, but politics has an interest in you. What is politics? War by other means. You might not be interested in that. It is going to have an in…

AI assessment note: “I'm hesitant to speculate. I don't know what was going on... That's not the point”

page 1
Made with StarZero

Turn any episode into a week of clips.

This entire site, over 500 episodes transcribed, diarized, checked and made playable, runs on the StarZero media pipeline. Drop in your own episode and the podcast clipper finds the moments worth sharing, cuts them, captions them, and reframes them for every feed.