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

451–460 of 573 posts

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#451

Post by shimman »

xscott wrote: post #101

Any argument about regulation in the US which doesn't mention that China and other countries aren't bound by that regulation should be heavily questioned. Exactly who are you stopping from doing what you don't like?!? Law abiding US citizens won't be able to run them, but you didn't solve anything other than making sure US citizens pay Sam or Dario.

As a US citizen I do not care about regulating China, they can figure out themselves. Just as they figured out how to imprison their corrupt CEOs, I'm confident they won't let corporations destroy their society like the US.

I rather let citizens of my country exercise our own authority and agency when deciding what is necessary for good societal outcomes (LLMs aren't necessary).

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#452

Post by skybrian »

willis936 wrote: post #97
mindwok wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>People's jobs, the bubble, etc are societal level problems and well beyond what Anthropic could even hope to influence on their own. This is not true. There are two companies at the center of AI direction: Anthropic and OpenAI. If there were anyone on the plant who has the ability to influence our direction then it would be Dario Amodei. Acknowledging the grievances is a good step, but it's not enough. There needs t…

They're big, but they don't have that kind of power and people would be very suspicious if they tried to get in the position to have that kind of power.

Hoping that they solve those huge problems themselves is basically hoping that they will have more power.

It would be like expecting Craigslist to rescue journalism. The amount of power needed to disrupt an industry is nowhere near what's needed to fix it.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#453

Post by mekael »

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.

Some of us have always had a class consciousness, we just tend not to be boisterous about it.

Mine is based on two things:

1. The fact that i grew up in poverty and never want anyone else to suffer that fate.

2. I was raised in a religious tradition that can be accurately described as socialist.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#454

Post by simoncion »

kingstnap wrote: post #40

> Overall my view is that AI is structurally a technology that tends to concentrate power > Open-weights do help some with this but are nowhere near a sufficient solution Which is exactly why Anthropic contributes nothing to, and actively pushes for roadblocks and regulations for open weight models. Can't allow any hope to the masses. Only people with $$$$$ are allowed to touch Fable. Which of course we have have agg…

> Only people with $$$$$ are allowed to touch Fable.

This was primarily a clever way to try to shore up their revenue numbers. By preventing folks who don't have seven-to-twelve-figure bank account balances from using the tools that were most expensive to build, they might actually stand to make money from those tools... once they're forced to do accounting that includes the cost to make those tools.

As a bonus, R&D cost for serving the fixed-price-subscription rabble can be massively reduced by providing them with older tools that have had the goop around them tweaked just enough to make the tool's output have a different "flavor". That class of customer will never know that they're being conned.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#455

Post by shimman »

moomoo11 wrote: post #423
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

50% productivity gains would be seen in real economic data tho, you're talk about potentially $5-15 trillion in real GDP gains; all we are seeing is just more mass consolidation of wealth into the hands of the few, we're even at the stage were we are designating extinction zones to empower these individuals even more.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#456

Post by overgard »

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…

Totally agree, like:

> 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.

Well, yeah Dario. You keep PUBLICLY TALKING about ways you want to fuck over people and everyone has noticed. I'm sorry, but when a lot of people are living paycheck-to-paycheck and watching layoffs everywhere, being like "well it'll take all the jobs and maybe kill humanity" is going to set off a LOT of alarm bells, despite your attempts to make concerned looking faces. You're trying to solve hypothetical problems in unproven ways, while worsening real problems people actually face. These people are SO disconnected from the society they live in.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#457

Post by overgard »

eloisant wrote: post #146
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…

Besides cancer isn't really "a disease" but rather "a family of diseases" that can vary a lot. Even breast cancer can be one of many different cancers. It's like saying "we'll cure infectious diseases"

Not to mention, hasn't the pharmaceutical industry taught us that curing diseases is a bad capitalist strategy? After all, why cure something if you can simply treat it, expensively, indefinitely.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#458

Post by simoncion »

DangitBobby wrote: post #332
gbrindisi wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's what either a disclosures section or a series of footnotes at the end is for.

For folks who care about quality discussion and writing, it's a tragedy that people are using microblogging tools to publish essays. The length restrictions enforced by and inferior formatting tools provided by these things make it difficult to have serious talks about complex topics.

Of course -for a subset of the population- those limitations are a feature, rather than a bug.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#459

Post by calvinmorrison »

delis-thumbs-7e wrote: post #447
kennywinker wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution to famine and poverty is not exactly a mystery. We have more than enough food on the planet for everyone, and we have the ability to deliver bombs or soldiers or amazon packages to anywhere in the world in days or hours. Combine excess food with amazon or army level logistics, and famine is gone. What people mean when they say “solve famine” is can we make people not starve without actually doing or chan…

> Combine excess food with amazon or army level logistics, and famine is gone. We do this. Have you ever heard of UN World Food Programme? $14B funding in 2022 (since then dropped drastically, guess why). Has it solved famine? No. Would it solve famine if it got the funding it needs? Unlikely. Because you cannot just spend billions of dollars to send amazin food parcels across the world and expect that to fix climate…

> (since then dropped drastically, guess why).

> Has it solved famine? No.

Hoist by your own petard

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#460

Post by joshheitzman »

user43928 wrote: post #324
smoe wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the problem is that people don't believe AI can be beneficial. The problem is the perception that AI will affect people's lives more negatively than positively, while a few get even more obscenely rich and powerful. If you don't tackle the societal level problems, nobody will care about research breakthroughs.

I don't see a lot of societal level problems other than the labor market, for which both Anthropic and OpenAI create research, monitoring, and policy advice. I don't think anyone will care about the largely made up issues about electricity prices or water use in case AI literally cures cancer.

"I don't see a lot of societal level problems other than the labor market" - that one problem is large enough to result in societal collapse.
Post reply on HN