Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Policy on the AI Exponential

darioamodei.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 280 posts

Re: Policy on the AI Exponential

#41

Post by woah »

TobyTheCamel wrote: post #30

I feel completely baffled by the other responses on this thread. People viewing this purely as a marketing stunt, regulatory capture or attack on their freedoms, with seemingly no appreciation of the real threat that AI could pose to society and even humanity given its current rate of progress. I'm not going to claim that the CEO of pre-IPO company has no incentive to bolster the claims of his tech, but to completely…

In terms of aeronautics, went from the Wright brothers to the moon in 40 years. After that, everyone understandably thought that we'd be living in space and flying everywhere with personal jet packs in another couple years. Little did they know, it was the top of the S-curve, not the middle.

In the 60 years since, we've barely been able to adapt the 737 to fly longer routes.

Re: Policy on the AI Exponential

#42

Post by raincole »

kouteiheika wrote: post #18

> AI companies that develop advanced AI models must have strong security standards that protect their model weights So, basically, make open-weight models illegal. It's nice for Dario to come out and say this so explicitly.

People ask what the 'open' part of 'OpenAI' even means as they're a for-profit company.

It turns out it means 'opener than Anthropic.'

Re: Policy on the AI Exponential

#43

Post by jampekka »

"Democracies should seek to form a global coalition centered on building AI according to their common values, iteratively trying to draw in the rest of the world by making it more and more attractive to be part of the coalition and less and less attractive to be outside it."

It's not clear to me on which side of the coalition USA is meant to be in this divide. And as an European I'm not sure whether being in China's or USA's coalition is better in the long term.

In general, this deliberate mongering of ever more geopolitical division is extremely harmful. As is the Trump bootlicking.

Re: Policy on the AI Exponential

#44

Post by aerhardt »

TobyTheCamel wrote: post #30

I feel completely baffled by the other responses on this thread. People viewing this purely as a marketing stunt, regulatory capture or attack on their freedoms, with seemingly no appreciation of the real threat that AI could pose to society and even humanity given its current rate of progress. I'm not going to claim that the CEO of pre-IPO company has no incentive to bolster the claims of his tech, but to completely…

Why are they not preaching for protected weights, but public, ie, under state control? What do you feel his posture will be if that is starting to be discussed?

Also, on an unrelated note, why would you have an account for 5 years and only now post your second comment? AI has been an existential threat for years, why only now?

This is a pattern I am seeing all over the place on HN in the last year in AI threads, and I have to admit that I am starting to become paranoid and my feels need some assuaging.

Re: Policy on the AI Exponential

#47

Post by esperent »

TobyTheCamel wrote: post #30

I feel completely baffled by the other responses on this thread. People viewing this purely as a marketing stunt, regulatory capture or attack on their freedoms, with seemingly no appreciation of the real threat that AI could pose to society and even humanity given its current rate of progress. I'm not going to claim that the CEO of pre-IPO company has no incentive to bolster the claims of his tech, but to completely…

> I'm not going to claim that the CEO of pre-IPO company has no incentive to bolster the claims of his tech

I am going to say it. The CEO of a pre-IPO company has extreme incentive to bolster the tech he is selling, to the point where his every action should be viewed as only in service to that goal. Every word he says should be viewed critically through that lense. He is not making this post out of the goodness of his heart, he is doing it in service to the IPO. If it happens to align with your views that's great, but it's still just a marketing stunt to get people with your views to buy in. Don't be fooled. Buy in if you feel it's a good deal, not because of the CEO's marketing.

Re: Policy on the AI Exponential

#48

Post by simplyluke »

kouteiheika wrote: post #18

> AI companies that develop advanced AI models must have strong security standards that protect their model weights So, basically, make open-weight models illegal. It's nice for Dario to come out and say this so explicitly.

Dario's been beating the regulatory capture drum for several years at various intervals, always in the name of safety, but it's hard to not see how self-serving it is.

I'm personally very tired of reading the linear-algebra-median of every AI safety essay from lesswrong with the inserted opinion of "therefore all my competitors, especially those pesky open source ones from scary countries should be illegal, only I can be trusted to not abuse the computer god that I definitely will have in just a couple more releases and with a couple more trillion invested"

Re: Policy on the AI Exponential

#49

Post by AgentME »

snaking0776 wrote: post #23

I know this is likely just for IPO hype but when I read things like this I sometimes wonder if I must be missing something. I use agents everyday and find them really useful and they save me a lot of headache. At the same time I find that if I let it self-direct at a high level at all it generally makes bad choices that cause me headaches later so I can’t really give them autonomy. Enough people seem to believe this…

If we already were at the point that AI could self-direct effectively, then the world would already be very different (eg AI-driven technological progress and unemployment) in a way that we might have wished we prepared for more.

Re: Policy on the AI Exponential

#50

Post by stackbutterflow »

nemomarx wrote: post #19
pixl97 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well obviously he'll have the AI 'dispose' of the poor and live a life as a king with a select few farmed humans and have the world as a play thing. Really the entire future of AI at this point seems like "Don't worry about it, we'll figure out when we get there". Works a lot better if you're extremely rich and can afford your own private security.

I never understood why people setting up bunkers expect the security to still be loyal after whatever happens.

Can't find the article mentioning it but apparently it's an open problem they're thinking about.

But yeah if society collapses these billionaire nerds are the first to go. Quietly, in their bunkers, while the team leader of their seal mercenary team takes over.

Even before the rest of us realizes what's happening.

Post reply on HN