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

281–290 of 572 posts

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#281

Post by copemaxxxing »

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…

I think it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter whether the creator of AI is a god or a devil. It will be hated anyway.

Because the reasons outlined in the article, plus many others. Concentration of power, unemployment, rising energy/living costs, stealing of digital artifacts owned by people.

I myself acknowledge that AI is useful. But due to the reasons above, I will be anti AI for the most part.

Yes, it doesn't matter if AI manages to cure cancer. Due to the reasons above, I will be anti AI. I suspect a lot of other people feel the same way.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#282

Post by fn-mote »

pixel_popping wrote: post #273
bdangubic wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This guy says less than politicians do. This is a good thing cause all politicians lie all the time :)

People lie all the time.

When people in power lie, it lowers trust in all society. I don’t want to live in a low-trust society, so I am against lying by CEOs and politicians.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#283

Post by mrhottakes »

traceroute66 wrote: post #136
kilpikaarna wrote: post #32

> I think it is fundamentally a crisis of trust. I think that ordinary people don’t trust companies, governments, or the tech industry and always suspect that we are cooking up some new way to screw them over. [...] > I don’t think that a glitzy marketing campaign with a positive spin (which some have advocated that Anthropic do) is the way to win back that trust — at this point, saying that AI will cure cancer is mo…

> The thing that will work is actually curing cancer. This is honestly hilarious. Dario must think people are stupid. First, cancer research charities are some of the most well funded on this planet. They all obtain donations on the basis of "together, we will cure cancer" messaging. They all fund the best science they can. Second, the human body is a complicated thing. You can feed your fancy LLM as many textbooks a…

He absolutely thinks we're stupid.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#284

Post by andsoitis »

vrganj wrote: post #251
a2ff6eeb0 wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> The one economically useful thing we will be able to do is legal property ownership. This is correct. But we don't need to ban AI to avoid the permanent underclass nightmare. It's time for the means of production to be owned communally. It's either a cybersocialist utopia or a neofeudalist dystopia. Rosa Luxemburg formulated it pretty well more than a hundred years ago: Socialism or Barbarism! .

> It's time for the means of production to be owned communally.

What does this mean in practice? That an individual cannot own a machine (which is a means of production)?

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#285

Post by mrhottakes »

Sharlin wrote: post #197
dgellow wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The effective altruist and longtermist crowd are into it as a religion. They would happily sacrifice anything human to satisfy their dreams of AI. They care way more about what the AI needs than their what their fellow humans need. We will end up with an AGI having better living and working conditions than humans and the whole AI industry will be clapping

I think you mean effective accelerationist, not effective altruist, whose position is pretty much the exact opposite.

They're the same thing, the "altruists" just lie more effectively.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#286

Post by EMIRELADERO »

a2ff6eeb0 wrote: post #280
EMIRELADERO wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apathetic mass-murder is unjustifiable, and the ultrarich would need to justify it to their families, who would then need to justify it to other people they know, and so on. And remember that we're talking about the majority of the global population, an event like that couldn't be hand-waved away like one would do for a minority group.

Iran just mass murdered their protesters earlier this year, and they needed to convince humans to pull the trigger. It didn't seem to be that hard for them to justify. It's probably a lot easier to convince the military AIs we're building to do it. I don't particularly like the situation, but I plan to do what I can to be on the winning side. The world is going to be what we're all in on building, and for people on t…

Not comparable at all. The Iranian protesters are/were a minority group within a country that itself makes up 1.1% of humanity.

I'm talking about morality here, not practical ability. The ultrarich have their circle of friends and family, who themselves have their own social circle, on and on until suddenly you're not looking at wealthy people anymore. Six degrees of separation and all that. How many people in the social graph can know about this extermination plan before the whole thing collapses?

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#287

Post by horsawlarway »

noosphr wrote: post #155
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…

Out of all the families of models anthropic by far has the highest chance of extinction level misalignment during a hypothetical hard take-off because it's trained to act like it knows better than the humans trying to use it.

Yeah... Anthropic gives off big "I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that" vibes.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#288

Post by jbs789 »

I am skeptical of David. But he is spot on with this comment:

“Yet Dario blames public negativity on a long-standing loss of trust in institutions rather than his own messaging.“

Dario’s arrogance and blind spots are really something to behold.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#289

Post by mrhottakes »

mindwok wrote: post #67
kilpikaarna wrote: post #32

> I think it is fundamentally a crisis of trust. I think that ordinary people don’t trust companies, governments, or the tech industry and always suspect that we are cooking up some new way to screw them over. [...] > I don’t think that a glitzy marketing campaign with a positive spin (which some have advocated that Anthropic do) is the way to win back that trust — at this point, saying that AI will cure cancer is mo…

I think it's more reasonable than it sounds on the surface. People's jobs, the bubble, etc are societal level problems and well beyond what Anthropic could even hope to influence on their own. Curing cancer sounds insane, but it's also a research problem, not a societal level coordination problem. And one AI has already proved to help with breakthroughs (alphafold). IMO it makes sense for them to shoot for something…

"Curing" cancer is actually a gigantic societal coordination problem.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#290

Post by jbs789 »

traceroute66 wrote: post #136
kilpikaarna wrote: post #32

> I think it is fundamentally a crisis of trust. I think that ordinary people don’t trust companies, governments, or the tech industry and always suspect that we are cooking up some new way to screw them over. [...] > I don’t think that a glitzy marketing campaign with a positive spin (which some have advocated that Anthropic do) is the way to win back that trust — at this point, saying that AI will cure cancer is mo…

> The thing that will work is actually curing cancer. This is honestly hilarious. Dario must think people are stupid. First, cancer research charities are some of the most well funded on this planet. They all obtain donations on the basis of "together, we will cure cancer" messaging. They all fund the best science they can. Second, the human body is a complicated thing. You can feed your fancy LLM as many textbooks a…

Having Claude write and rewrite something now, each time correcting itself when I start a new session… hilarious.
Post reply on HN