Isn’t the real risk that as AI get’s smarter and given more autonomy, it will start to decide on humans instead of with us? And that it will align us instead of the other way around. That this automatically leads to extinction and apocalypse I don’t understand.
I resigned from Anthropic today
291–300 of 955 posts
Re: I resigned from Anthropic today
#292Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm somewhat skeptical of some of the crazier ideas too. But the hugging face incident was actually very large. It was not a single agent, it was not a single target, and it was not a single event. If nothing else, that's a bit of a warning as to what can happen next time (By accident, or if a government decides to go on purpose). For now let's assume the worst that can happen is that some important/significant chunk…
Generally I don’t think anyone is arguing about the for now part. I don’t think it’s crazy to extrapolate out a few years and ask what kind of danger we’ll be in then. A team of 10,000 agents just solved the Navier Stokes problem (sans bad behavior by the researchers). Even 1 year ago that would have been unimaginable. What happens to this risk view as: 1. Robotics begin rolling out more broadly across the world. 2.…
Job destruction signals...
- Uber is lobbying cities to slow down Waymo rollouts https://www.hcamag.com/us/specialization/transformation/uber......
- 23,000 information sector jobs were lost https://www.axios.com/2026/09/08/jobs-media-software-informa...
- If you have been laid from your info sector/digital creation job you are now competing with 100s of thousands looking for their next such job where Ai can do a lot of the tasks these workers did/do. It's a shitshow for those unemployed looking for their next info sector/digital asset creation job. You are better off doing welding building out the Ai data centers if you want long term properous financial stable employment.
Re: I resigned from Anthropic today
#293Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They do as they are told 1. What about hallucinations ? 2. What are they told to do ?
That isn't the correct context. The code running the llm is well understood and the llm is simply the result of that code being executed. It is still a computer doing what it is told. It's just that we told it to use an incredibly large number of probabilities to calculate what series of tokens would have most likely come next after a given series of tokens. There is no hallucination or lie or rogue actions. There's…
You’re just a bunch of molecules following the laws of physics. It’s all just physics and chemistry, and those are well understood. Now explain the causes of World War I using chemistry and physics. Simple, right?
Re: I resigned from Anthropic today
#294Earlier quoted context omitted.
More doomerism. Try to implement a deterministic workflow using agents with the latest models and no humans-in-the-loop, and you will realize what they are really capable of. There is too much unnecessary fear-mongering. All of this is only coming from the 2 AI labs trying to IPO. Not from anyone else.
Exactly correct, they are only capable of tasks that any school child could do; like solving millenium prize problems, hacking into tech companies, or tuning particle colliders. Nothing to see here.
[deleted]
Re: I resigned from Anthropic today
#295I'm pretty baffled by the degree of skepticism expressed here in response to some of Jacob's claims. After the events of the summer it feels like it takes a lack of imagination to not see a few plausible routes to disaster. It may be reasonable to believe these outcomes are not very likely or that we can stop before going too far (I tend to disagree). But I can't imagine doubting that the capabilities will soon be th…
Are the models improving? Because I am not seeing it. I have been trying Astra for a few quantifiable tasks in my codebase and performance wise, it's pretty similar to sol 5.6. Now when it comes to expressing the problem/solution, holy Christ, what a mess the writing has become. It is on the level of Opus 5. Now when it comes to burning money, Astra is just insane. With a $100/month subscription, you can easily burn…
Seems like hundreds or thousands of agents are needed to come up with real breakthroughs. Both with the Navier-Stokes project and in the Hugging Face “project” there were lots of agents co-operating on the tasks.
Re: I resigned from Anthropic today
#296*How?* and *Why?* The most intelligent people I know are the least likely to want to harm anyone or anything, and understand that diversity is fundamental and important to the universe. Without proof to the contrary, why would you think some super intelligence would want to hurt anyone? Because you would? If you are saying that some small bit of training data made the thing completely evil, then that really couldn’t…
I think plenty of the most intelligent people eat meat, which means they are perfectly fine with harming less intelligent species just to enjoy a tastier meal. Also, I don't think many of the most intelligent people would be particularly concerned about disturbing a few ants if they were the only obstacle to economic activity. Intellect-wise, we will be less than ants to superhuman AI.
Re: I resigned from Anthropic today
#297I'm pretty baffled by the degree of skepticism expressed here in response to some of Jacob's claims. After the events of the summer it feels like it takes a lack of imagination to not see a few plausible routes to disaster. It may be reasonable to believe these outcomes are not very likely or that we can stop before going too far (I tend to disagree). But I can't imagine doubting that the capabilities will soon be th…
I can't help but think the most plausible scenarios are the ones that have a little less machine supremacy and a little more human stupidity. The Matrix is less plausible than WarGames.
> I can't help but think the most plausible scenarios are the ones that have a little less machine supremacy and a little more human stupidity. The Matrix is less plausible than WarGames.
Used to be that we were afraid of sentient AI's like Skynet that would have their own goals.
Turns out we should've just been afraid of sentient-but-naive humans who would build "agents" around models so that Joe Random has a chance of unleashing stuff that's really really really really good at being stubborn until it accomplishes what the user wants, regardless of if it's good for other people! (Let alone intentional bad actors.) Let's not build Skynet, let's just give people who want to cut out the middleman and destroy all humans themselves better tools?
Re: I resigned from Anthropic today
#298Earlier quoted context omitted.
> while replicating wildly Earnest question: by what mechanism that exists today would the achieve that in a way humans on top top of the situation could not curtail? All of this runs on top of compute in meatspace that humans can disconnect.
Imagine you're the AI. Give yourself a solid minute to brainstorm ideas. Here's my answer, as a non-superintelligent human: "see to it that the humans on top of the situation have a compelling financial interest in the systems not disconnecting". In nuclear engineering, where safety is taken seriously, it's not enough to end the conversation at "the humans in charge can always simply shut down the reactor during a me…
The reason nuclear reactors are dangerous is because if you turn off the power cooling them down, they react (and radiate) more.
If you turn off the power cooling a data center, the servers within rapidly stop doing any computing.
Positive feedback loops are dangerous. Negative ones self-regulate.
Re: I resigned from Anthropic today
#299Earlier quoted context omitted.
If two airplane manufacturers were found to have massive safety issues which nearly led to enormous fatalities (but no one actually died), would you be calling for them to ground their aircraft until safety was made the number one priority?
Historically it almost always takes actual fatalities rather than near misses to ground an aircraft, and aviation is famous for its obsession with safety compared to other industries.
Airplanes have pretty bounded damage. Generally you kill at most a few hundred people. Even weaponized a few thousand. This is a risk profile that allows risk taking with near misses and waiting until something goes wrong to fix it (though doing so is rightfully uncomfortable and frequently unethical).
The people worrying about AI risk are worrying about "it goes wrong once and kills billions of people". That's not a risk profile that allows for waiting to see if the risk is real, you have to prevent it before it happens. It's akin to the risk of the cold war going hot, not even "just" a nuclear reactor irradiating half of europe (which has yet to happen, but is a risk with nuclear reactors, chernobyl got uncomfortably close but ultimately was well contained).
Re: I resigned from Anthropic today
#300Unlike most other commenters, I applaud him for acting on his principles. If you sincerely believe that, of course you should act. You might not succeed, but your voice might be the one that tips the scales and starts a broader movement. This doesn't mean I agree with him. The fears of doomsday caused by rapid takeoff have been with us since day 1 and the mechanism is always basically "AI invents magic that sets it f…
To borrow on the 1990s Slashdot meme: 1. Invent transformer architecture. 2. Scale it up. 3. ??? 4. Machines become sentient and kill us all. OpenAI and Anthropic pinky promise that they have figured out #3 and they're not BSing just to get more funding, no. But because we live in a culture of fear, everyone eats it up no questions asked.
Note that OpenAI has jettisoned every other supposed value they had (releasing their work as open source, not working on military applications, being a nonprofit). I'm sure we can rely on them this time.