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

541–550 of 573 posts

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#541

Post by hn_submit »

Arainach wrote: post #440
hn_submit wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can call it anything you like but it's still the repairing of DNA. It will be contested in Court and the patent holder will lose.

What's your source for this? This isn't how patent law works. You can't patent "repairing a road" but you can absolutely patent a new mechanism to do so. Most patents are of this form - there are far more patents for improved ways of doing things than initial ways of doing things.

You cannot patent gene repair with CRISPR-CAS because that's long been patented (and also disputed by multiple entities).

If several genes are faulty and I repair them what would be the innovation? The detection of a specific set of faulty genes? The order of repair?

Big Pharma has long figured this out and I have inside knowledge from people who know that this is the reason they're not pursuing it.

P.S.: Big Pharma is now quietly also researching gene repair but I believe it's to hedge their bets. Maybe they're counting on "lobbying"/bribing politicians to allow them to patent gene repair regardless.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#542

Post by no-name-here »

lesuorac wrote: post #351
subygan wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you're right. it coincidentally solves cancer and infectious diseases as well. the ultimate utopia

Look, it's really simple we'll have 3 laws that the robots follow and nothing will go wrong.

Ah the 3 laws have edge cases? Actually our industry will just release bots with none of the 3 laws, including bots for military use where their whole purpose is the opposite of the 3 laws.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#543

Post by pixl97 »

urams wrote: post #529
postboxaerobics wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really agree with the other commenter, I don't think EAs are intentionally sacrificing humanity for AI, but the fact it's unintentional doesn't really change the fact this is what they are doing. Anthropic are explicitly building ASI, using recursive self improvement, with no knowledge of how to control it. They spend only a minimal fraction of their funds on safety work, none of which relates to controlling…

I truly don't see any major problem with what they're doing. For any current significant risk (security, bio risks), their models are notoriously useless.

This is an odd take. OpenAI models you use are pretty useless for hacking. The models they have seem to be pretty damned good at it.

It's kind of like saying you can't kill everyone with weapons when you're looking at what you can buy at the local Walmart and not what's in the 1000 foot deep missile silo.

Also, it's kind of a once you build it, it's too late kind of issue. No model will be good enough, the problem is still in the future, we're all dead.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#544

Post by tngranados »

> 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.

Then, proceeds at promising it again, without delivering. Amazing.

> We are however doing our best to fix this: Anthropic is ramping up its efforts very quickly in biology and medicine, and we hope to have incredible results in the coming years and some early glimmers in the coming months. When we’ve actually accomplished something real, the whole world will hear about it, as loudly as possible, you have my word on that.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#545

Post by q8zd3 »

7373737373 wrote: post #188
yoavm wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a mistake. If it was done by an auto-correct mechanism, would we still say "maybe don't sell your word processor to the army if you can't vouch for its auto-correct system!!!"? Besides, "taking notes" can literally be listing targets, and "getting from A to B" can be the road to killing them.

How intelligent and autonomous does a murderbot have to become before you stop absolving its creator and seller from any responsibility?

LLM providers get a free pass for anything these days, unfortunately

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#546

Post by shimman »

jacquesm wrote: post #527
shimman wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm lobbying the government by helping elect politicians into Congress that want to impose a national moratorium on new DCs and helping organize groups across the US on how to properly resist these things.

I hope you have extremely deep pockets.

Progressive campaigns are more effective in capturing voters. We're talking a potential 8/10-to-1 differential here, sometimes more extreme for local campaigns.

But yeah if you only rely on money and not people power campaigns are expensive and hard, when you have entire communities backing you things become slightly easier.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#547

Post by andsoitis »

vrganj wrote: post #392
andsoitis wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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)?

I think we'll have to figure out the details, of course. As a first intuition, I feel like its mostly server farms and data centers that are the concern, large scale means of production. It feels right that those would be communally owned, be that via democratic government or maybe some sort of worker owned coop?

But those won't get built by companies in the first place, because you want to constrain what companies can own.

Nothing prevents the government or coops today from building these things.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#548

Post by kennywinker »

delis-thumbs-7e wrote: post #538
kennywinker wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UN estimates it would cost $93 billion a year to end world hunger ( https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/11/1166397 ) So one would expect $14b/year would solve about 14/93 = 15% of world hunger. > The World Food Programme supports over 152 million people annually and delivers life-saving food assistance where needed most. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Food_Programme ) An estimated 757 million people are food…

Basically you are asking $93b yearly at point when the biggest donor US has already slashed the funding and cannot even stop poverty insode it’s own nation. Maybe you are just trolling or arguing for sports, but you are completely missing the point why hunger and famines happen and why they cannot be solved with throwing money at them. Look at it this way, would Trump end hunger in Mississippi (about 600k people) if,…

As my first link points out - $93b is less than 1% of annual military spending.

I am arguing nothing except that it’s possible if we are willing to spend the money. No AGI is required to come up with a magic solution. It literally just requires spending a lot of money.

> Look at it this way, would Trump end hunger in Mississippi (about 600k people) if, say, Luxemburg would donate USA anout $400m required to end it[1]?

Probably not. But would trump step in and prevent luxemburg from stocking mississippi’s food banks? Could luxemburg send containers of non-perishable food to community centers in every city in the state?

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#549

Post by xg15 »

urams wrote: post #506
dgellow wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you say so. I’ve been following the development of both groups since almost a decade, I’m pretty confident I understand their concepts and what values they stand for

Please explain an EA position that could possibly suggest that they would deprioritize human lives in order to make AGI more comfortable when, for example, the largest EA philanthropy organization, Coefficient Giving, formerly Open Philanthropy, has given millions to Yudkowksy's MIRI which is currently among the most anti-AGI organizations on the planet? Can you find any explicitly EA organization that is at all alig…

Out of curiosity, what does an explicit "anti-AGI" AI research organization do? Train a "definitely not AGI" AI?

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#550

Post by xg15 »

urams wrote: post #536
watwut wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If he believes it is as dangerous as he says while raisimg money and building it, he should STOP and work on slowing down the bubble. Instead, he is turbocharging development, otherwise said choosing to cause harm he warns about. That is literaly example of causing harm now and in near future, not caring about people now, only about vision.

https://fortune.com/2025/02/13/anthropic-hired-president-dan... He works on the safety team and their responsible scaling policies. He literally may be working on slowing down AGI progress at Anthropic.

Ah yes, the public health representative of the tobacco company.
Post reply on HN