alt Hacker NewsWhen I read this comment I don't get "Neutral Party" from it. I'm finding it hard to decide whether to focus on the loaded characterisations or (my best guess at) the underlying substance.
To address the point I think you (and the article) are making; there's a difference between advocating that a scoped, due-process-protected power exist and endorsing any given exercise of it. This point is made in Anthropic's original statement, but it's seemingly been missed by everyone taking a position against them.
>As we have stated publicly, we believe the government should have the ability to block unsafe deployments, as part of a statutory process that is transparent, fair, clear, and grounded in technical facts. This action does not adhere to those principles. [1]
But with respect to your specific post:
>high-minded philosophical nonsense
Taking a sophisticated approach to a problem will generally improve the outcome. I suppose your point is that it can be difficult to deliniate sophisticated & good-faith reasoning from self-serving rationalisation. Much of what I've seen from Anthropic supports the former. Perhaps others could do more to build up the case for the latter.
You can look at things like the circumstances that the company was founded in, the lack of political cozying with the current admin, the lack of controversies or disgruntled ex-employees, them taking a stand against the DoD (against their business interests), positions they've taken on various issues including data centres in gulf states.
>Suppose a company calls themselves The Doomsday Device Company
Anthropic hasn't. What's the explanatory purpose of adding this to the analogy?
>They make and sell excellent-quality doomsday devices | They regularly go online to proclaim that their doomsday devices are the best and most powerful, and also that doomsday devices are dangerous and should be regulated.
Anthropic invests a reasonable amount into assuring the safety of the products they sell. No-one is claiming they sell doomsday devices. Concerns of doom relate to future iterations of the underlying technology.
>The Doosmday Device company spends a great deal of time and money telling everyone: "Our doomsday device is the most doomy of all time!"
They have what's essentially an automated vulnerability-discovering machine. They've done their best to be open about the very real implications of general availability of a system like this. Using the word "doomy" positions them as childish and unsophisticated for doing this, when it's actually the reasonable and responsible thing to do.