On AI regulation and messaging

Post by alexashka » Mon, Aug 17, 2026, 5:27 PM UTC

pixel_popping wrote: post #294

fn-mote wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Agreed, but that doesn't change the fact that people lie in general. Most people start lying long before they reach any position of power and in many cases, lying is exaclyt how they got there. That's what makes it hard to fix: by the time someone is in power, the behavior has already been rewarded and is already doing a snowball effect. I'm not defending it (especially in Politics, it shouldn't be legal) , just ackn…

Post by busssard » Mon, Aug 17, 2026, 5:44 PM UTC

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…

Post by hn_submit » Mon, Aug 17, 2026, 5:49 PM UTC

Arainach wrote: post #378

hn_submit wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Repairing cannot be patented. It will be rejected as "trivial" by the Patent Office. Yes, I know someone patented a "cure" for hemophilia which repairs the DNA of said patient. But that's just because no other pharmaceutical thought it worth their while to fight the patent since the number of patients is small. But I can guarantee you that a cancer cure patent that repairs the DNA will be fought in Court.

"repairing DNA" isn't patentable, but "a mechanism for altering base pairs using " is absolutely patentable.

Post by whimsicalism » Mon, Aug 17, 2026, 6:00 PM UTC

user43928 wrote: post #340

jacquesm wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 by whimsicalism » Mon, Aug 17, 2026, 6:03 PM UTC

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.