Anthropic and Alignment (Ben Thompson)
stratechery.com
Anthropic and Alignment (Ben Thompson)
1–10 of 19 posts
Re: Anthropic and Alignment (Ben Thompson)
#2Ben says over and over again that he's not making the argument about the importance of democratic oversight, but he clearly is. He doesn't like Amodei and is happy to see him fail, and it comes through loud and clear in the piece.
Anthropic, like any other US company, should be free to not sell to the government if they don't want to. These other arguments about oversight are nonsense.
Re: Anthropic and Alignment (Ben Thompson)
#3Ben says over and over again that he's not making the argument about the importance of democratic oversight, but he clearly is. He doesn't like Amodei and is happy to see him fail, and it comes through loud and clear in the piece. Anthropic, like any other US company, should be free to not sell to the government if they don't want to. These other arguments about oversight are nonsense.
I don't think he ever said in the article that he is not making the argument about the importance of democratic oversight, if anything, in the conclusion, he says:
"The way to address this new reality, however, is with new laws and through strengthening accountable oversight; cheering or even demanding that an unelected executive decide how and where such powerful capabilities can be used is the road an even more despotic future."
But I think you drastically misunderstood the point of this article. Ben is pointing out the implications of Amodei's analogy of advanced AI being like nuclear weapons. The government has a monopoly on nuclear weapons and has extreme regulations and oversight on the companies that help build nuclear weapons for it. And those companies do not tell the government how or when they can use the nukes.
So if advanced AI is like nuclear weapons, why can an unelected executive tell a democratically elected government how to use it?
Re: Anthropic and Alignment (Ben Thompson)
#4Ben says over and over again that he's not making the argument about the importance of democratic oversight, but he clearly is. He doesn't like Amodei and is happy to see him fail, and it comes through loud and clear in the piece. Anthropic, like any other US company, should be free to not sell to the government if they don't want to. These other arguments about oversight are nonsense.
I thought this was a flimsy piece. Agree with your conclusion.
Also - I'm surprised the government didn't say "ok" and then use Claude (as they wished) anyways. Don't know the details and am oversimplfying, but seems like a plausible path without much recourse/oversight.
Re: Anthropic and Alignment (Ben Thompson)
#5Ben says over and over again that he's not making the argument about the importance of democratic oversight, but he clearly is. He doesn't like Amodei and is happy to see him fail, and it comes through loud and clear in the piece. Anthropic, like any other US company, should be free to not sell to the government if they don't want to. These other arguments about oversight are nonsense.
I don't think he ever said in the article that he is not making the argument about the importance of democratic oversight, if anything, in the conclusion, he says: "The way to address this new reality, however, is with new laws and through strengthening accountable oversight; cheering or even demanding that an unelected executive decide how and where such powerful capabilities can be used is the road an even more des…
I'm not well-read on the history of nuclear, but is it the case that nuclear developed first in government and was then spread to private industry via gov't outreach/motivation?
Here, I think we're talking about the opposite, right? Private developed, then gov't used. It's so obvious in the first path that gov't would remain in the control, but I'm not sure how to think about what's "right" in the private-to-gov't path.
Re: Anthropic and Alignment (Ben Thompson)
#6Ben says over and over again that he's not making the argument about the importance of democratic oversight, but he clearly is. He doesn't like Amodei and is happy to see him fail, and it comes through loud and clear in the piece. Anthropic, like any other US company, should be free to not sell to the government if they don't want to. These other arguments about oversight are nonsense.
I don't think he ever said in the article that he is not making the argument about the importance of democratic oversight, if anything, in the conclusion, he says: "The way to address this new reality, however, is with new laws and through strengthening accountable oversight; cheering or even demanding that an unelected executive decide how and where such powerful capabilities can be used is the road an even more des…
This analogy makes no sense. You and I can go use Claude right now. The government clearly doesn't think they are nukes. If the government wants to control this technology like a weapon then it should do that, but that's not what's happening.
Re: Anthropic and Alignment (Ben Thompson)
#7When did Ben Thompson go so far down the path to autocratic sympathizer? This is such an anti-democratic, anti-free market, anti-free speech view on this whole situation.
First, everything revolves around a core conceit that "Might makes right". The idea that entities might might push back with the tools at their disposal is treated as a fools errand, you should just acquiesce.
The role of the legislative branch in deciding what private entities are allowed, or not allowed to do is treated as a side note. He equates the dictates of the executive branch as if it was the will of the United States itself, above even the Constitution.
It's dismissive of the rights of private companies and individuals to make decisions for themselves about the actions they take and whether or how they choose to transact within the law with parts of the executive branch.
He acts as if it's a foregone conclusion that every AI company should be considered an arm of the executive branch of the US government. The analogy to nuclear weapons is super flawed, there are multiple laws on the books (written into law by Congress) specifically regulating Nuclear research and development.
And most astonishingly he ends it dropping an implied threat of violence towards Anthropic (and assumedly anyone else who doesn't agree with his point of view):
> I don’t want that, and, more pertinently, the ones with guns aren’t going to tolerate it.
Wow.
Re: Anthropic and Alignment (Ben Thompson)
#8[deleted]
Re: Anthropic and Alignment (Ben Thompson)
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think he ever said in the article that he is not making the argument about the importance of democratic oversight, if anything, in the conclusion, he says: "The way to address this new reality, however, is with new laws and through strengthening accountable oversight; cheering or even demanding that an unelected executive decide how and where such powerful capabilities can be used is the road an even more des…
This analogy makes no sense. You and I can go use Claude right now. The government clearly doesn't think they are nukes. If the government wants to control this technology like a weapon then it should do that, but that's not what's happening.
That's not what is happening, yet. If this technology is at the scale of nuclear weapons, you don't think the government is going to step in and take control of it?
Re: Anthropic and Alignment (Ben Thompson)
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
This analogy makes no sense. You and I can go use Claude right now. The government clearly doesn't think they are nukes. If the government wants to control this technology like a weapon then it should do that, but that's not what's happening.
That's not what is happening, yet. If this technology is at the scale of nuclear weapons, you don't think the government is going to step in and take control of it?
If AI reaches that scale, it's going to step in and take control of governments.