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

421–430 of 573 posts

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#421

Post by bigfishrunning »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #416
traceroute66 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Third, would it even work? Big Pharma just recently cured obesity, and I’m not sure that’s shifted their reputation very much.

Commercials, in 5 years

"If you or a loved one have taken a class of drugs known as GLP-1, you may be entitled to compensation..."

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#422

Post by bigfishrunning »

urams wrote: post #406
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

It's so weird how distorted your view of any of these concepts are from what these people actually say. I don't think you've ever seriously looked into either group if you believe any of their views support what you say. In fact, many EAs and "longetermists" are explicitly AGAINST the development of AGI.

The EAs told me a monster will come get me if I don't put all of my effort into developing an AGI...

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#423

Post by moomoo11 »

glimshe wrote: post #13

One thing Dario said is important reflecting on (but from another angle): where's the big deliverable from AI? If AI makes us 10x more productive, the 3 years since its popularization were enough for a product that would have taken 30 years to build without AI, for instance. I'm an AI advocate but that question makes me feel that AI is simply "very useful" rather than being a historical game changer for humanity.

here's how I think of it.

Maximalists: 10x

Minimalists: were always close to 0x individuals, so opinion rejected 99% of the time

Realists: 30-50% productivity gains

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#424

Post by VCFundedGenYer »

The less he says the better. This was saying way too much in a far too pretentious way, without addressing the core problems.

It's not quite Sam Altman levels of delusional, but it's up there.

This is not how to swing the pendulum back in a positive direction.

Want to make a difference? Make AI use little to no natural resources, stop eating up RAM, stop making everything expensive, etc. Otherwise, don't talk.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#425

Post by alexashka »

eloisius wrote: post #168
vrganj wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an ideological thing. (We just had a conversation about ideology actually, remember?) Capitalism has always been a tension between capitalists, who want maximum return on capital and workers, who want pesky things like a living wage, sick leave or safe work conditions. For the longest time, the only power labor has had to get those things was the power of collective bargaining. No agreement with your workers mea…

If they had AGI, why would they need consumers anymore? Just use your drone army to secure all natural resources and produce whatever you need for yourself. Other humans are just pets.

> why would they need consumers anymore?

That was the exact line of thought, coupled with resources are limited (marketed as climate change), that led to the 1 child policy in China and many other decisions that shall not be spoken of.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#426

Post by philipkglass »

a2ff6eeb0 wrote: post #418
watwut wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. AI as a tech is not an issue. The wealth and power accumulation in the hands of Amodei, Altman, Thiel, Musk, Karp and the rest of CEO is the issue. Permanent underclass is ideological goal of the above people. AI is an impersonal technology with no goals or wishes.

I'm not sure how that changes anything -- sure, if you blocked people from using AI, it wouldn't have any effects on society, but once people have access, what they do with it matters. There's an inevitable effect that it has, and the only lever you have as an individual is being on the right side of that.

Copy the technology and give people access without trying to financially profit from it.

Even if the US federal government refuses to act, smaller government entities can deploy their own compute clusters running strong open-weights models like Kimi K3, and provide their own citizens with free access to strong AI models. There may come a time when even Chinese providers no longer release strong model weights, but then the previous generation of strong open-weights models can be used to accelerate the development of data pipelines and training setups to build the next generation. California or Australia (or many others) could fund university-led R&D efforts to build completely open models.

Despite the angry noises that leading providers make about their model outputs being used to train competing models, that's not illegal. States can use Common Crawl, Anna's Archive, Books3, commercial model outputs, and whatever other data sources that are useful for building models. States have sovereign immunity to ignore copyright complaints, if they decide to pursue model development.

The big AI companies don't have much of a moat. Let the big companies spend a fortune figuring out what works best, then openly build imitations having 95% of the capability at 5% of the cost.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#427

Post by A_D_E_P_T »

user43928 wrote: post #336
bananaflag wrote: post #108

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. 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

Who is "we"? Are you Dario or an Anthropic rep?

Writing a paper on streamlining the FDA approval process is nice, and I agree with all of it, but it's one thing to do that (about 4 hours of work) and quite another thing to cure cancer.

My point was more that LLMs are exceptionally weak at developing drugs. They're strong at every math/logic/language task, but curing cancer is something of an entirely different nature. Again, if he wanted to "solve physics," or "develop a universal real-time language translator," or even "solve global warming," I wouldn't be nearly so skeptical.

...The first is something that can be credibly attempted with a next-gen super-LLM and a ton of compute. The second is something that LLMs are exceptionally good at, and a dedicated engineering effort might get you there. The third is a modeling/simulation problem with solutions that are, at least in principle, known but haven't yet been thoroughly weighted. (i.e., how bad really is ocean seeding or launching SO2 into the atmosphere?)

But curing cancer? It's not even clear how to approach the problem. Cancer is also heterogeneous... so when I say that LLMs are weak at developing drugs, the problem is compounded, as curing cancer might require dozens or hundreds of distinct new drugs. It's like Dario picked the least likely, most difficult problem to solve. So it's weird.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#428

Post by Karrot_Kream »

advisedwang wrote: post #419
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.

I think the hyper business oriented, technology first view that is what HN typically has been is actually the exception. Open Source, hacker culture, scorn of "the suits", the love of sci-fi and it's attendant politics -- the bulk of actual technical people have a long history of being very politically aware and deliberately eschewing money for their values. It was rarely Marxist Class-Conciousness type stuff, but it…

Right, so why did this site revert to the mean then? Just because every noodle place is mediocre doesn't mean I want my noodle place to become mediocre.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#429

Post by andriy_koval »

user43928 wrote: post #384
jacquesm wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean besides the fear mongering, the clear attempts at regulatory capture, articles like this: https://www.wired.com/story/anthropic-benevolent-artificial-... and the linked tweet here you need more to convince you that this person may not have our general best interests at heart? Between Musk, Altman, Schmidt, Amodei, Gates and a bunch of others I have a really hard time figuring out who is the least ethical. Pr…

Isn't the fear mongering and position on regulation consistent with the beliefs he shares about the dangers of AI and how frontier models must be developed and deployed in a safe way? I see the conflict of interest of course, but so far I have not seen anything that convinced me Amodei works towards any other goal than benefit for humanity as a whole, like he claims.

> I have not seen anything

if many other see it as substantial ground, and you just say "I don't see anything", how do you think this discussion can go forward?

Post reply on HN