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

331–340 of 573 posts

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#331

Post by dgellow »

EMIRELADERO wrote: post #275
a2ff6eeb0 wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kind of political leverage do the useless have? This isn't a realistically sustainable outcome. Today, people have leverage because removing them has real economic consequences. With AI, we need to be on the useful side of the divide to have any leverage. And then we'd better hope AI has respect for property rights.

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.

I consider DOGE actions to be pretty much exactly what you describe, with their sudden destruction of USAID and defunding of climate science

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#332

Post by DangitBobby »

gbrindisi wrote: post #230
ed_mercer wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, he has financial incentives. That doesn't automatically make what he says false or dishonest.

it kinda does unless he is straightforward about his financial incentives

Lol. If he included everything you'd claim he needs to sound honest you'd criticize him for being long winded instead.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#333

Post by throwaway_7274 »

nozzlegear wrote: post #326
throwaway_7274 wrote: post #214

Just want to say, this comment section on this website would have been unthinkable a few years ago. It’s wild: all the engineers have developed class consciousness. I wonder how that happened? Anyway, it’s fun to watch, but remember to stay sane guys, be aware of the pendulum dynamics.

> be aware of the pendulum dynamics. What do you mean?

People overcorrect, even when making directionally necessary corrections.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#334

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

epihelix wrote: post #322
tsimionescu wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two relevant problems here, I think. For one, the question for Anthropic is whether LLMs, specifically, not AI techniques more generally, can help significantly with cancer research. And here, all experience so far is that LLMs only really work when they can easily automatically verify their own outputs and self correct - such as in math (using automatic proof verifiers) or programming (using compilers and…

For drug discovery, you can simulate interactions in silico, driven in an agentic loop via LLM. Mostly stil using non-LLM tools, of course, but it saves time. If I was Dario, and I was after a cynical sales grab to go with the "actually curing cancer!" spiel, I'd probably aim for a drug repurposing strategy. I'd use the above approach to find existing drugs that might target known pathways that drive incurable cancer…

This plan would still take 3-5 years, even in the best case scenario. Clinical trials are really hard.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#335

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

> 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 more a cliche than it is inspiring, and most people think it is deceptive. The thing that will work is actually curing cancer.

The way to do this is with large automated wetlabs running experiments and generating novel training data on the behavior of cells.

It's with partnerships with governments and universities that educate the masses to the point where many of us are better able to contribute towards the project of growing the available knowledge in a useful way.

It's with more NIH funding and fewer anti-science propagandists attacking that funding so they can sell their snake oil without pesky facts getting in the way.

What's actually happening is our data centers are spewing carcinogens into places where humans will breathe them and we're lying to ourselves about how if we just keep going this way we'll cure cancer.

Stop making the world less habitable by trying to squeeze another drop of model utility out of the existing knowledge, and start helping with the creation of new knowledge.

It's going to take decades to ramp up. Let's turn the page and get started.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#336

Post by user43928 »

bananaflag wrote: post #108
kilpikaarna wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI bros consistently handwave away any notions of the material world imposing limits, because (spoiler!) it's a religion where you start from the miracle and work backwards. "Oh, we'll just set up fully automated robotic research labs everywhere!" Where will you get the raw materials? Oh we'll mine the asteroids! How will you find the energy to get there? Oh, the AI will invent new physics! (again without needing to…

> AI bros consistently handwave away any notions of the material world imposing limits, because (spoiler!) it's a religion where you start from the miracle and work backwards. How else are you going to work towards a dream? It's how Elon Musk managed to get reusable rockets when everyone said it's unfeasible. Granted, most ideas don't work, this is why you need testing, but I am a bit surprised to see this attitude o…

Pathetic discourse in the comments for the most part.

As if we didn't know the challenges in translating research into clinical treatments.

I wonder if many of the commenters here read the post, where Amodei specifically references his essay with suggestions for streamlining the FDA approval processes: https://darioamodei.com/post/policy-on-the-ai-exponential

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#337

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#338

Post by tokioyoyo »

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 don’t even think they have a PR problem, if their revenue numbers are correct. Sure, maybe in the court of public opinion, but time and time again it shows how it can be fixed.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#339

Post by q8zd3 »

7373737373 wrote: post #109
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…

And maybe don't allow the military to use your AI WHEN YOU CAN'T TELL WHETHER IT WAS INVOLVED IN THE KILLING OF HUNDREDS OF SCHOOL CHILDREN

context?

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#340

Post by user43928 »

jacquesm wrote: post #315
user43928 wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you not think that Amodei, who worked on research about cancer biomarkers at Stanford, knows a thing or two about how to apply AI to the problem? What he is saying makes sense to me. Is it that you don't trust a single word he says and that he lies for financial gain? Or do you think he is wrong and that applying AI to this kind of research cannot possibly produce a breakthrough and lead to a cure?

Not the OP. > Do you not think that Amodei, who worked on research about cancer biomarkers at Stanford, knows a thing or two about how to apply AI to the problem? It certainly shows he is ambitious. > Is it that you don't trust a single word he says and that he lies for financial gain? Yes. > Or do you think he is wrong and that applying AI to this kind of research cannot possibly produce a breakthrough and lead to a…

And is there any evidence that suggests such flawed character?

I am not familiar with Amodei's personal history, but I generally do not assume the worst of people just because they are extremely successful, like many others here seem to do.

Post reply on HN