Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I resigned from Anthropic today

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

561–570 of 1001 posts

Re: I resigned from Anthropic today

#561

Post by doublerabbit »

bad_username wrote: post #487

AI is a computer program. It calculates numbers from other numbers. By itself it does not "want" to do anything and "cannot" do anything. Before it becomes an agent in the universe (in the classical meaning), it requires being supplied by an execution environment, energy, initiative (agentic loop, specific instructions), and modality (readonly and mutating connections to real world). It is like a game of chess - it d…

Solar panels and Ring doorbells, the ultimate party and you're not invited.

Each doorbell press activates a prompt to eliminate a human at random.

Re: I resigned from Anthropic today

#562

Post by ytoawwhra92 »

hnlmorg wrote: post #402
huitzitziltzin wrote: post #94

“ No other human activity poses this level of danger.” I really, really disagree with that statement. I don’t think ai models come close to nuclear weapons or to run-of-the-mill, everyday carbon emissions in terms of danger to humanity. What’s the most dangerous thing that’s happened with an LLM so far? (This question is serious - maybe I don’t know the right examples.) Example 1: I’m aware of a small number of peopl…

You’ve identified that the risks of nuclear weapons are theoretical. ie in theory we could blow up the world even though we haven’t yet done so. Well the worries about AI are equivalent in that those risks are discussed now because discussing them after they’ve happened is clearly too late. That’s the thing about risk. There’s no point discussing it after it’s happened and any discussions beforehand can easily be han…

The risks of nuclear weapons aren't theoretical. Nuclear weapons have killed people, destroyed infrastructure, and contaminated the environment. The Limited Test Ban Treaty was put in place after radioactive fallout from repeated nuclear weapons tests made people sick.

So in fact we've done exactly what you suggest there's "no point" doing - used the things and then had a discussion after the fact about limiting future use of them.

Re: I resigned from Anthropic today

#563

Post by mitthrowaway2 »

computerphage wrote: post #463
thomascountz wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not correct. Please go through each one again, taking special note of global warming and nuclear weapon development .

Why do you think global warming could kill literally every human being? What's the scenario in which that happens?

Worst case is warming oceans create a hypoxic environment where anaerobic bacteria thrive en masse and generate H2S over country-scale areas undersea. The chemocline breaches the surface and the ocean and atmosphere become poisonous to most complex life and agriculture, also stripping the ozone layer in the process, irradiating the surface. This is one mechanism posited for the end-permian mass extinction that eradicated most ocean and surface life, including the trilobites.

Not sure how long we'd survive such a scenario, even sheltering underground. But surely it couldn't happen to us.

(However, it now seems like the AI might get us first.)

Re: I resigned from Anthropic today

#564

Post by petesergeant »

Ekaros wrote: post #514
petesergeant wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Abstractly, yes but concretely, how? AI has the capability to perform any function that can be performed over a network. You would hope that every system that can launch a nuke is properly and actually totally air-gapped, but there are lots of things you'd hope that turn out to not be true.

They are not totally. As such I would give non zero chance of even current AI to be able to socially manipulate a launch after sufficient hype up period... So prolonged campaign might make it possible.

And even if they are, agents are able to place calls with a fake voice to random phone numbers…

Re: I resigned from Anthropic today

#565

Post by zombiwoof »

vrganj wrote: post #443
bpodgursky wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Putting "wealth inequality" in the same bucket as nuclear weapons is just slop. The OP is talking about existential threats, not things that personally annoy you.

Tell that to Tsar Nicholas.

The guillotine was an amazing equalizer

Re: I resigned from Anthropic today

#566

Post by thomascountz »

IshKebab wrote: post #525
thomascountz wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you misunderstand what is meant by 'wealth inequality.' Wealth inequality is about the imbalance of influence and the concentration of power; where influence and power refer to the ability to effect change in other people's lives. This isn't a personal annoyance of mine. It is, in fact, part of the issue at hand. There is a strong financial incentive to ignore the existential threats introduced by LLMs, despi…

He knows what wealth inequality is . You need to explain how it can somehow lead to the extinction of the human race.

See: nuclear weapon development and climate change. See: supply chain shortages and war. See: disinformation against vaccines.

Re: I resigned from Anthropic today

#567

Post by nashashmi »

thomascountz wrote: post #409

No other human activity poses this level of danger. I do heed the warnings, but this comes across as detached hyperbole. See: global warming, nuclear weapon development, wealth inequality, war, technology dependence, etc. Also, this has nothing to do with LLMs or computers. Like all things, this is about humans.

The tweets justify his position that this is bigger than nukes. Nukes still have the problem of production and deployment. This is just software.

He is blowing the whistle on how reckless we are at furthering the tech. There is no second thought at maybe development of this tech is not a good idea. Its just full speed ahead.

Re: I resigned from Anthropic today

#568

Post by ben_w »

thomascountz wrote: post #543
computerphage wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think global warming could kill literally every human being? What's the scenario in which that happens?

There's a lot to unpack with this, and I am not an expert, but: crop failure across industrial monocrops leads to food shortages, wild fires destroy significant areas which support pollinator ecologies, fresh water become contaminated by rising sea water and blighted by drought, and perhaps most significantly, as resources become strained, humans become desperate and armed conflict proliferates. This is just top of m…

None of those are "all"/extinction.

Bad, sure; I wish they were not present to threaten us, but they are not close to "all".

Humans are extremely resilient omnivores. We are able to eat a huge range of things from algae to zebra, and get food (farmed and hunted) from salt water as well as fresh.

Re: I resigned from Anthropic today

#569

Post by mr_mitm »

SaucyWrong wrote: post #132
achenatx wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they dont need to be smarter than humans. They just need to be able to hack into vital infrastructure systems faster than we can repair them while also replicating wildly

> 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.

I'm waiting for some data center to be built where no one can agree on who actually commissioned and payed for the thing. Every body "just followed orders" until it turns out that it was Grok.

Re: I resigned from Anthropic today

#570

Post by nashashmi »

huitzitziltzin wrote: post #94

“ No other human activity poses this level of danger.” I really, really disagree with that statement. I don’t think ai models come close to nuclear weapons or to run-of-the-mill, everyday carbon emissions in terms of danger to humanity. What’s the most dangerous thing that’s happened with an LLM so far? (This question is serious - maybe I don’t know the right examples.) Example 1: I’m aware of a small number of peopl…

Nukes have difficult maintenance and deployments. AI is is readily available software and hardware. That makes this far more accessible than nukes.

The fear is that developing AI at full speed will lead to giving people the ability to do incredible harm. Like something worse than a machine gun.

Post reply on HN