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

On AI regulation and messaging

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 573 posts

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#241

Post by typ »

mindwok wrote: post #74

I genuinely think Dario is a well intentioned, intelligent dude, but I think him and Anthropic have a huge PR problem and are really out of touch with how they're perceived. Anthropic in particular has developed this almost Orwellian like veil of condescending rhetoric that on the surface suggests they're looking out for you while underneath they're taking actions that suggest they do not trust you, Mr/Mrs Ordinary P…

> give people anything except your words.

I feel that everyone in this small AI bubble (compared to the "normies") is busy trying to take advantage of AI to surpass everyone else, while fearing being surpassed by everyone else.

Most people assume LLMs are just a tool for making money, an arms race over wealth and social rank. But those like Dario seem to be worried that LLMs could potentially be used as automatic rifles by some dedicated psychopaths. Whether it could be that dangerous, or just an exaggeration, or we should have everyone armed, require licenses to own one, or outright ban them, is debatable. But I can understand his point.

All I can say at the moment is that this is more subtle than the superficial conspiracy/black-and-white narrative.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#242

Post by Razengan »

dmd wrote: post #202
jacquesm wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Dario must think people are stupid. All of those guys think people are stupid. That theme has been repeating over and over again.

To be fair, the vast majority of people are stupid, in one way or another. Or do you believe that you are smart in every way there is to be smart?

You just have to find the correct prompts for them, and keep them away from getting mad at any of the ACTUALLY evil shit in the world, like weapons manufacturers, 24/7 global surveillance, perpetual debt and wage slavery, factory farms, constantly dwindling personal freedoms, and a handful of people owning all of it and not allowing anything that empowers the common peasant.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#243

Post by jacquesm »

forest32 wrote: post #234
mhaberl wrote: post #213

> We are however doing our best to fix this: Anthropic is ramping up its efforts very quickly in biology and medicine, and we hope to have incredible results in the coming years and some early glimmers in the coming months. When we’ve actually accomplished something real, the whole world will hear about it, as loudly as possible, you have my word on that. 1. He is giving his word that if he cures cancer, he will brag…

[flagged]

Check parent comment history.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#244

Post by RandomLensman »

kanzure wrote: post #232
RandomLensman wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you address the non-interchangeable nature of synonymous codons? Do we know the right replacements?

Well, first, I would have to check and see if the synoynmous codons are important for virus reproduction. Second, this technique requires (AFAIK) lots of cell line viability testing and lots of tweaking. I don't think it's as simple as code swapping all the codons and then all the biology magically works the right way, biology is rarely that simple. Requires effort.

This sounds highly speculative then, i.e., the biology could never work out, no?

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#245

Post by a2ff6eeb0 »

vrganj wrote: post #231
a2ff6eeb0 wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And this is why we need to escape the permanent underclass.

How about we don't create one instead?

It's not a choice we have, unless you want to figure out a global AI ban treaty.

AI will make human thought economically useless. In the new economy, the one economically useful thing we will be able to do is legal property ownership.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#246

Post by hn_submit »

mhaberl wrote: post #213

> We are however doing our best to fix this: Anthropic is ramping up its efforts very quickly in biology and medicine, and we hope to have incredible results in the coming years and some early glimmers in the coming months. When we’ve actually accomplished something real, the whole world will hear about it, as loudly as possible, you have my word on that. 1. He is giving his word that if he cures cancer, he will brag…

It's fairly easy to cure cancer by repairing DNA, but Big Pharma isn't interested because they can't patent it. They want to sell us some kind of "miracle cure" medicine that earns them trillions.

The future is being held back by profit motives.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#247

Post by dist-epoch »

mhaberl wrote: post #213

> We are however doing our best to fix this: Anthropic is ramping up its efforts very quickly in biology and medicine, and we hope to have incredible results in the coming years and some early glimmers in the coming months. When we’ve actually accomplished something real, the whole world will hear about it, as loudly as possible, you have my word on that. 1. He is giving his word that if he cures cancer, he will brag…

> is that planned for a few days before the IPO

Anthropic is the fastest revenue growing company in the history of Capitalism. I don't think they need any more marketing for investors.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#248

Post by tsimionescu »

yoavm wrote: post #166
tsimionescu wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a huge difference between your product being used for basic military operations like taking notes or getting from A to B, and your products suggesting military operations that kill hundreds of schoolchildren, an obvious and horrific war crime.

It's a mistake. If it was done by an auto-correct mechanism, would we still say "maybe don't sell your word processor to the army if you can't vouch for its auto-correct system!!!"? Besides, "taking notes" can literally be listing targets, and "getting from A to B" can be the road to killing them.

Again, a product that facilitates the taking of notes, even notes that entail the killing of human beings, is fundamentally different from a product that exists to suggest which human beings to kill (or at least which places to destroy, regardless of whether human beings happen to be there or not).

If MS Word had some kind of systematic bias that made it likely to corrupt the notes taken in it such that they tend to be more bloody battle plans, then that would indeed lead to some responsibility on the MS engineer's part for any mistakes that result from this bug. Similarly for Ford engineers if their vehicles had some bug that made them more likely to lead soldiers riding in them to the wrong destination.

If your system is designed to help choose targets, and it chooses the wrong target, especially with such tragic consequences, then your system is likely not fit for purpose and you should be held responsible for selling it to the army. And that is assuming it didn't actually have some bias + misalignment problem where it intentionally tried to kill children, and selected this school specifically because it gave some plausible deniability. For all we know, it's even possible that some bias like this was known about inside Amthropic and hidden from the public - unless an external investigation is made, that can't be ruled out.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#249

Post by dist-epoch »

QwenGlazer9000 wrote: post #229
pas wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LLM-assisted software engineering seems to be very efficient if you have a deterministic target. (bun rewrite from zig to Rust, 100% Node.js compatibility, pnpm compatibility -- https://github.com/oven-sh/bun/pull/38333 )

Problem with that is that it's not proper rust code, it's some kind of franken zig style rust port. The actual hard part is getting it into idiomatic, safe rust, and I don't believe the LLM port makes the full transition any easier than doing things the old fashioned way: a dual lang code base like Linux.

And compiler generated assembly code is ugly and spaghetti, unlike beautiful hand-crafted human written assembly code, the kind you see in ffmpeg codecs, ...

Doesn't matter.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#250

Post by greatgib »

I think that this guy and Anthropic are a clear example of the "power corrupt" rule.

Basically he is probably a nice guy and well meaning from his point of view. But, now that they hold a huge power to impact "on demand" AI usage and regulation, and they are kind of the tip of a monopoly on advanced AI, they will see themselves as more important than anyone else, and with the moral duty to impose their view on everyone that hasn't the worth as them.

Just imagine if the company was still a small outsider, their official point of view would probably be a lot different. Especially with something like "regulation is a barrier to entry"...

Post reply on HN