alt Hacker NewsDramatic insider warnings over AI fall flat with some in Silicon Valley
Comments
Maybe they can use their brilliant super AI to address some real and present threats that are being ignored like nuclear annihilation, the loss of the prohibition of the acquisition of territory by force established after WWII, the certainty of all of the fossilized carbon being dug up out of the ground and released into the environment, the resurgence of measles and a poor posture for the next pandemic, ETC...
To everyone who believes that this is some nefarious plot by CEOs to bring about regulation or to hide that they've hit a wall or to make their models seem more capable or whatever:
The AI risk arguments are philosophical arguments that are 20-30 years old and don't have anything to do with the current corporate landscape. They were thought of by people who really care about the issue and all the "gotcha" lines have well-developed counters. Of course they might be stuck in their ideology but they deserve a bit more credit.
I don't doubt that AI CEOs can profit from a crisis and that they don't necessarily have our best interests at heart. But this is the same way governments during COVID tested how much they can restrain freedom. This doesn't mean COVID doesn't exist or that vaccines are evil or ineffective or whatever. Same way here, if there is an advantage to CEOs to regulate things doesn't mean AIs can't kill us all and that regulation might bring us more time to solve alignment.
Also: I accept I might be wrong and AI risk might be a fake issue and/or alignment might be impossible, but please bring better arguments if you want to convince me.
Is this a signal that open models are becoming good enough for a lot of people?
I don't see the part about helping quarterly earnings. #useless.
Next.
As long as they don't connect WOPR, I mean, Claude to the nukes, we'll be fine.
It's weird that we have two parallel discussions and they're not meeting in the obvious middle.
OpenAI is out there hacking HF, RubyGems, etc...
Dario is talking about restricting the frontier, pausing development.
The problem is that "restricting the frontier" benefits no one as much as the frontier labs. But there are other ways to force alignment-- make companies liable for these felonies their agents commit.
Make them liable, and they might actually devote the necessary resources to fixing these problems, rather than throwing their hands up and just saying "Trust nobody buy us", which obviously no one does.
>One conference speaker, Grindr CEO George Arison, told the BBC he believed this week's comments from Coxon and others were indicative of an "anti-civilisational worldview at Anthropic".
>He called them "dangerous" and said they had prompted him to instruct some engineers at the LGBTQ+ dating app to stop using Anthropic's technology.
>"It is irresponsible for us as stewards of our shareholders' money to be relying on a business that does what this company does, in terms of its public statements," he said.
"Yes, the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders" but without any irony.
At least tell us where the datacenters are located so we can do something if shit hits the fan.
The actual risk from AI is not its "intelligence", but the profound stupidity of the humans connecting it to important infrastructure.
This has got to be the last straw with the anthropomorphization. I swear listening to the pro-AI crowd is like listening to an autistic child babble on and on and on about their way cool robot sketches in their notebooks. These are not adults and there are no robots.
[dead]
It's just a bunch of drama from two American companies trying to lock in their lead via government regulation. Meanwhile I'll just keep using open-weight models.
The CEO of Grindr, fresh from illegally sharing users' HIV status with advertisers, complains that a company displaying scruples is "anti-civilisational".
Astonishing.