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

721–730 of 907 posts

Re: I resigned from Anthropic today

#721

Post by Findecanor »

icepush wrote: post #503
thomascountz wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Global warming is happening at a slow enough pace that there is plenty of time for people to move to the poles/into caves/beneath the ocean/whatever. Nuclear war would be much more destructive in a much shorter range of time but you will have pockets.

People already entrenched near the poles will fight to keep others out. Right-wing anti-immigrant parties are on the rise right now already.

They also tend to not want to recognise climate change -- because that would imply that people could migrate because of it.

Re: I resigned from Anthropic today

#722

Post by floodle »

Perseids wrote: post #655
thomascountz wrote: post #417

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.

Let me argue on a technicality first: None of these are extinction level events. If global warming disrupts 99% of all crop production, the remaining 1% is still plenty enough to sustain a stable, if miserable, population. In fact you just need about 5k people for a stable gene pool[1]. Of the classical threats, only bioweapons got a shot at extinction, but even that is hard, given the (few) remaining truly secluded…

Calling it a "technicality" assumes the very thing under debate: that AI is an extinction-level risk. That isn't established fact. It's a highly uncertain prediction about the future.

Personally, I'm far more concerned about climate change, where the harms are already happening and the evidence is much stronger.

Re: I resigned from Anthropic today

#723

Post by ben_w »

thomascountz wrote: post #602
ben_w wrote: post #581

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Perhaps I have a bit more imagination—or a bit more humility towards our humanity—such that I believe this is not "either/or". In the vast search space of potential future outcomes, of course even I can see humanity survive nature as I've seen nature survive humanity. However, I can also so easily see probable branches where we are our own undoing. Apropos of TFA, if one is to believe LLMs can carve a threatening pat…

> Apropos of TFA, if one is to believe LLMs can carve a threatening path to humanity end, how could one not see the same for our much older extant threats?

Which "much older" extant threats?

Global warming and nukes are industrial era threats. Pre-industrial threats were the four horsemen of the apocalypse: war, famine, pestilence, and death.

War and death didn't go away, but are not (and never were) extinction threats. Famine and pestilence, well, there's a reason people point the finger of blame at the Chinese government for the Great Leap Forward, and why we had lockdowns for Covid while we tested that the vaccines were safe (we went from "genome sequenced" to "first human test" in 66 days; the rest of the wait being mix of "yes but how sure are we it's safe?" tests and manufacturing at scale).

If everywhere except North Sentinel Island was wiped out, or everywhere but Hawaii, or everywhere but Greenland, humanity would be back to the level of the 1750s within a few millennia at most; and other than the North Sentinel Island example, likely even faster as books with many advanced solutions to historical problems would survive and be comprehensible.

And the problem with LLMs (and other AI) is, we're giving them control of stuff, and that stuff includes robots. The *current* versions mainly concern me for economic and cybersecurity reasons, but the tech moves fast, and the companies working on them are reckless.

My core expectation is these models will cause 1e3-1e7 deaths in a single event before people collectively actually take the risk seriously. The lower end of that is "industrial accident", the upper range includes "convinces people to go to war", and these are examples of ways current LLMs can already plausibly do wrong, given who uses them, why they use them, and how careful they are about their usage.

However, a common failure mode for people is "that was an unfortunate incident, but we studied the problem and we fixed it, it can't happen again" right before a different error they hadn't though of explodes in their faces. This is how we can get to 8e9 deaths: people keep pushing the models to do more, and keep lying to themselves that "this time we fixed all the problems, everything will work, it will be great".

Re: I resigned from Anthropic today

#724

Post by singularity2001 »

eloisant wrote: post #707
Perseids wrote: post #655

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me argue on a technicality first: None of these are extinction level events. If global warming disrupts 99% of all crop production, the remaining 1% is still plenty enough to sustain a stable, if miserable, population. In fact you just need about 5k people for a stable gene pool[1]. Of the classical threats, only bioweapons got a shot at extinction, but even that is hard, given the (few) remaining truly secluded…

I still have to read a compelling argument on how AI will "extinct" humanity.

There are future scenarios in which swarms of drones hunt down every single one of us, but why would they? And currently it makes absolutely zero sense because they are completely dependent on us. And even if not, it would be like humanity going on a mission to kill every single cat on Earth. It makes zero sense.

Re: I resigned from Anthropic today

#725

Post by ozozozd »

DecoPerson wrote: post #628

To anyone doubting what AI could do humanity, just think about what a well-engineered virus could do. Currently, if a government ordered a special virus with Ethnicity-based targeting, a 2-year timer, and castration-effects instead deadly-effects — it wouldn’t be possible. Human engineers would push back or sabotage the effort out of moral duty. Even if they cooperated, it’s too advanced for a team of humans to actua…

Is the requirement that it’s a fancy new virus?

US has 15 to 25 million people unprotected from Polio.

Polio is still endemic in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Re: I resigned from Anthropic today

#726

Post by _fizz_buzz_ »

Perseids wrote: post #655
thomascountz wrote: post #417

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.

Let me argue on a technicality first: None of these are extinction level events. If global warming disrupts 99% of all crop production, the remaining 1% is still plenty enough to sustain a stable, if miserable, population. In fact you just need about 5k people for a stable gene pool[1]. Of the classical threats, only bioweapons got a shot at extinction, but even that is hard, given the (few) remaining truly secluded…

> If global warming disrupts 99% of all crop production, the remaining 1% is still plenty enough to sustain a stable, if miserable, population.

That is extinctesque enough for me. An AI extinction would probably be similiar.

Re: I resigned from Anthropic today

#727

Post by shafyy »

rossant wrote: post #719
thomascountz wrote: post #417

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.

An AI, either acting autonomously or under human direction, hacks Russian/North Korea/etc. intelligence systems and convinces them that the US has launched ballistic missiles at them. The end.

Watched one too many second-tier disaster movies?

Re: I resigned from Anthropic today

#728

Post by ozozozd »

mofeien wrote: post #597
bwfan123 wrote: post #255

Earlier 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.

> All of this is only coming from the 2 AI labs trying to IPO. He has resigned from Anthropic. Is your argument that he quit Anthropic pre-IPO, sacrificing his payoff just to hype Anthropic?

Why would he sacrifice his pay-off? He is likely around 80% vested after 3 years.

He did reduce his tax liability though.

Re: I resigned from Anthropic today

#729

Post by thomascountz »

Perseids wrote: post #655
thomascountz wrote: post #417

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.

Let me argue on a technicality first: None of these are extinction level events. If global warming disrupts 99% of all crop production, the remaining 1% is still plenty enough to sustain a stable, if miserable, population. In fact you just need about 5k people for a stable gene pool[1]. Of the classical threats, only bioweapons got a shot at extinction, but even that is hard, given the (few) remaining truly secluded…

This is a fair distinction: extinction vs collapse of civilization. I was using "extinction" too broadly by including the disintegration of the systems that make human survival (as we know it today) possible.

That said, I can't completely hold onto the belief that extinction is completely off the table. That feels too much like hubris, and the step from collapse to extinction doesn't feel as if it costs much. Though it does make my arguments weaker, I am more interested in protecting civilization as it's the most recognizable form of humanity to me.

In either case, the cost-effective safety argument is compelling. Whether to save civilization or humanity, the wealth incentive is powerful enough to threaten life as we know it.

Re: I resigned from Anthropic today

#730

Post by kakacik »

rurban wrote: post #620
skybrian wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The mathematics research results are certainly impressive, but I don't see what that has to do with robotics. Waymo is getting somewhere, but it's been a long slog. There doesn't seem to be much progress on, say, package delivery. For more, see: https://secondthoughts.ai/p/14-reasons-robotics-is-hard

Didn't you follow the robotics advances in the Ukrainian - Russian battlefield? There is now a death zone of 50km, only controlled by drones and automatic weapons.

> There is now a death zone of 50km, only controlled by drones and automatic weapons.

If there would be such 50km death zone, front line would not move a nanometer in a year, would it. You yourself contradict above in your next post. No need for being too dramatic, facts are enough here.

In reality, frontline is moving constantly albeit by small chunks, russians are advancing a bit, getting beating elsewhere and so on. Automated drones are helping, but bulk of destruction is still handled by human drone operators as it should be.

Post reply on HN