This was pretty directly addressed in the article: not doing it would only mean they'd fall behind whoever would. This is not peace time in the AI race.

Whether you agree with that argument is another question.

> I am not cynical enough to believe that Anthropic's warnings are pure marketing hype.

Nor am I. I think they believe that AI poses a grave danger, and they are playing the prisoner's dilemma as an unvirtuous actor.

1. If anyone builds strong AI, it may be catastrophically bad.

2. If anyone builds strong AI, it will be better for the builder than for anyone who does not. Either because it won't be catastrophically bad so the builder will get to enjoy all the spoils indefinitely or because it will and at least the builder will be rich for a while.

The thing about nukes is you can at least make an argument for why it'd be important to be the first country to have them. With AI, you create super intelligence and you're probably just the first one it takes out. There's no reason to think a super intelligence would be totally fine being a slave to apes.

Cynicism with these companies is highly warranted though. It's not doomerism to look at their actions and conclude they're deeply untrustworthy.

Anthropics goal is regulatory capture.

To complete the analogy, it's like nukes, except we don't have the slightest idea how to calculate the odds of it igniting the atmosphere. (And note that in reality, while the Trinity test "ignite the atmosphere" calculations were correct, we failed to correctly calculate the fallout of the Castle Bravo test with lethal consequences).

Sorry for nitpicking, but:

> If nukes were not invented yet, would it really be a good idea to build and sell them as fast as possible (in peace time, no less)?

Arguably, yes.

Such a massively valued company. And doubting them is cynicism? It’s rational(ism).

So either they lie or they are AI Zealots. Interesting times.

> I am not cynical enough to believe that Anthropic's warnings are pure marketing hype.

It's not cynicism if it's an appraisal of reality that's backed up by evidence.

Remember how social media - that first baby of this current generation of tech entrepreneurs - was supposed to "bring the world together" and "let us express ourselves"? As it turns out there's a lot more money to be made by fostering division to drive engagement and feeding people an endless stream of ads instead of their friends' content. And money is what matters. You can't write down good vibes on a quarterly figures report. You can absolutely write down the number of eyes that your ragebait brought to a product's marketing efforts and the conversion rate to sales.

The same will be done with GenAI. We're being promised "AI Safety" because otherwise this whole thing gets killed dead by anyone who knows about James Cameron's directing career. There's no real enforcement mechanism for AI safety, though. Safety is a good vibe, same as harmony in online communities. You can't measure it. What you can measure is training costs and the cost of mistakes by AI that need to be trained to avoid those mistakes. Since AI generates more output than humans can conceivably QA no matter what your budget is, and since AI is seen by the market as a potential endless font of value, the tradeoff will be made to have AI make some potentially awful decisions while training itself over slowing down and re-appraising what is being done.

There's an almost religious reverence for AI in SV. Not everyone sees it as "making the godhead" but some certainly do. They're not going to moderate themselves too much on this.

Such a massively valued company. And doubting them is cynicism? It’s rational(ism).

So either they lie or they are AI Zealots. Interesting times.

Edit:

> > and the two people I knew who later joined Anthropic seem like the type to do it for the greater good instead of money.

There are three types of people. Pedestrians, investors, and “I know some of them, they wouldn’t lie”.

> I am not cynical enough to believe that Anthropic's warnings are pure marketing hype.

It doesn't really have to be dishonest, he could really believe it. I do believe, however, that it is incredibly wrong and is functioning as marketing hype.