Live data from Hacker News

Policy on the AI Exponential

darioamodei.com

231–240 of 280 posts

Re: Policy on the AI Exponential

#231
post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sci-fi writers have a great track record of predicting the future. Scientists and engineers have an abysmal track record of predicting the future. You know to be concerned when a claim is dismissed with ‘that’s just science fiction, it will never happen’

> Sci-fi writers have a great track record of predicting the future. Broken clock... They are good at exploring possibilities, but none of the famous one predicted today.

Quite the extraordinary claim. What of today writers of the past did not predict?

Mind you, no one is able to predict the future with accuracy. I am not saying that a single person has gotten all their prediction right. That's ludicrous. But while scientists and engineers are focused on today's possibilities, the ones that are allowed to imagine what the future might look like are called writers.

Re: Policy on the AI Exponential

#232
post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suggest a better name for what’s happening with LLMs please.

Snake oil scam. They simply don't do what the label on the box says they do.

It is really hard to believe you actually believe this unless there really is this class of people that are so addicted to social media that they have confused performativity with actual thinking.

Re: Policy on the AI Exponential

#233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Working to keep a roof over the head of yourself and those you love is an identity. It's social proof that you have value, that you can do something for someone else.

You have value just by virtue of being a living being. No one needs work to have or portray value, that's just capitalist propaganda. My own identity certainly isn't "IT manager," nor do I derive life meaning or self actualization from what do to collect a salary to feed myself and have shelter. In fact, my career/job is by far the least important thing in my life, I have it purely out of necessity.

You don't need to work, but you need to have value in your tribe. You need the respect of peers. You need to feel part of a team. You need to feel like you contribute something to the lives of those you love.

Re: Policy on the AI Exponential

#234
post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was funemployed for a 9 month stretch last year (layoff severance package, followed by waiting for a visa and traveling), and when I wasn't traveling, I found my life kind of falling apart with a lack of structure. I tried to schedule workout classes and hobbies, as well as involvement in my church, but it just didn't fill my time, and none of my friends were free during the day. I spent a lot of time with my retir…

It is simply because you have spent all your life being told what to do with your working hours, that you cannot self-direct and find a productive use for your time other than lazying around. The fact that you call it ‘funemployment’ is proof of this, which is perfectly fine if the goal is relaxing between jobs. Plenty of people that work for themselves have no such notion.

It takes time to re-ground yourself, to renew your ambitions to new circumstances.

It usually takes more than a year even for employees.

Re: Policy on the AI Exponential

#235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>why is all I hear these industry leaders talking about is the threat of extinction? . . . I would love to see a leading lab release research on the health effects of subaudible sound in datacenters It is straightforward for industry leaders to avoid living near data centers, but there's no way for them to insulate themselves from the extinction threat -- no way short of somehow eliminating the danger for everybody,…

I see. I wonder how this works out in terms of risk/reward. I suppose if you take extinction as -infinite cost than it would be the only issue worth thinking about. Where I think this line of thinking gets challenging is when you need to take in terms of a counter factual. A lot of these were already risks prior to AI (bioweapons, nukes, etc) so what’s the marginal increase in probability as a result of AI I guess is…

[deleted]

Re: Policy on the AI Exponential

#236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Sorry, audibly chuckling about the idea of software developers who consider themselves "everyday working class people". Keep it coming, Tom Morello.

Believe it or not, but not every software developer is making 7 figures annually with a few millions in vested shares. Even within the US.

Re: Policy on the AI Exponential

#237
post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sci-fi writers have a great track record of predicting the future. Broken clock... They are good at exploring possibilities, but none of the famous one predicted today.

Quite the extraordinary claim. What of today writers of the past did not predict? Mind you, no one is able to predict the future with accuracy. I am not saying that a single person has gotten all their prediction right. That's ludicrous. But while scientists and engineers are focused on today's possibilities, the ones that are allowed to imagine what the future might look like are called writers.

You are claiming sci-fi writers predicted better than scientists. No way that's true from the perspective you lean on here, where you appear to take all scientists vs all writers or something along the lines.

Re: Policy on the AI Exponential

#238
post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happened to indira ghandi?

Indira Gandhi tried religious divide and rule way too many times - in Kashmir and West Bengal/Assam she got away with it while she was alive and it blew up later but Punjab was her Antietam.

The point being she got gunned down by people who she thought was loyal.

Once a human goes after a class of people - the people who protect such persons’ also take them out.

Re: Policy on the AI Exponential

#239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With what money you fool? They are deep in the red. That’s before considering reinvestment needs.

If you think they are deep in the red why do you want any regulation? They will cease to exist. You don’t have to worry in that case.

You must be pretty stupid to write such a post.

Regulation puts up a barrier to entry, enabling incumbents to have greater market power.

Re: Policy on the AI Exponential

#240

I like that he comes up with new laws and regulations for AI companies. Can I suggest some more? - You shall not embed copyrighted material in your models. - You shall not bombard every little website in existence with 1 million scraping queries per day. - You shall not use your political influence to pump and dump your AI (or rocket?) company. - You shall not imperill the whole IT sector by buying all CPU and memory…

I see a lot of skepticism in Dario's position in this forum. But allow me to argue the opposite.

I think the key argument that this skepticism lies on is that he himself gained from AI - specifically building Frontier AI models - and this is basically regulatory capture disguised as doomerism.

Fair points - but I think this is a more charitable version of this. Dario is building Anthropic because that is the most valuable thing he can build, or at least that is what his conviction has been. The success of Anthropic and the impending IPO is proof that this conviction has not only been correct but has largely played out very successfully. Dario understands the true nature of AI and he has welded that power to immense personal benefit.

But maybe he also sees the potential danger to AI which he is trying to address through these posts and regulatory initiatives. There are three reasons why I would support the charitable version:

Firstly, personal gain and societal benefit can coexist in the same individual. And both of them might drive towards opposite agendas. But that doesn't necessarily have to mean that the impulse driving the societal benefit is not earnest. In fact if you would look at Dario’s proposal - like closing the data broker loophole - several of them could constrain Anthropic instead of benefitting them.

Secondly, he expects that his concerns on the negative potential of AI will be taken seriously, if he is actually running the Frontier AI company. And there is some truth to this argument. The only reason we are discussing this is because he is the CEO of Anthropic. He is probably the most influential figure outside of the government who has to be taken seriously when he claims something like this.

Thirdly, and most importantly, Dario has previously demonstrated that he is willing to sacrifice personal/corporate gains for societal benefits. The proof is the classification by the US DoD of Anthropic as a supply chain risk when Anthropic refused to completely cooperate with the military to develop fully Autonomous AI weapons and enable mass surveillance. It would have been only too easy for Dario to accept if personal benefit was his only concern - and OpenAI was more than ready to step in their place.

Even with Mythos - Anthropic could have released the model to the public broadly. But they took their time to reduce the potential danger - as best as they could. Despite the fact that GPT-5.5 was nipping in the buds in what is becoming a very competitive market.

That being said, just because Dario is acting in good faith, does not mean that this will all result in good outcomes. The FAA-styled regulation could still end up favoring incumbents - some of whom might choose to not act in good faith. A more diversified capability can potentially limit that power ending up in a small number of wrong hands. Just because Anthropic is the leader right now, doesn't mean that they will always be. Maybe someone else tomorrow benefits from this regulatory capture at the expense of everyone else - and Dario might have a hand in driving it.

Post reply on HN