Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a big fan of the whole Foundation saga, I don't remember any wars in "Robots and Empire" 3 books. Granted, those were the only books I've read only once (and a long time ago), but I'm pretty sure there was no war.
That's fair, the books portray it as a quiet withdrawal from humanity, rather than a war with humanity
I resigned from Anthropic today
961–970 of 1001 posts
Re: I resigned from Anthropic today
#962Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For now let's assume the worst that can happen is that some important/significant chunk of (transitively) internet connected stuff goes haywire all at once. That's probably your upper limit of what can go wrong for now. If we have to disconnect from the internet to stop some kind of mold outbreak, we can't get the weather or transfer money or access healthcare or teach an elementary school class or buy stuff from s…
Believe me, without the internet we can still teach. We'll be pretty annoyed that we can't project the video that we think scaffolds today's science lesson best or show the approved choreography for the school play. And our office staff will be annoyed that we suddenly are all running attendance to the main office old-school. And students will take a few days to adjust to writing down homework in their planners again…
There are offline wireless hdmi adapters, this is a solved problem. Just have to have the videos pre downloaded or offline available
Re: I resigned from Anthropic today
#963Just wait till self improving AI are focused on the problems of social scoring and political party empowerment / entrenchment. I doubt the focus is OpenAI and Anthropic looking at each other. I suspect they’re racing BRIC.
Will you be optimizing your behaviour now to alleviate potential negative judgement from AI in the future?
Re: I resigned from Anthropic today
#964Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they want regulation, oversight, nationalization, a global slowdown, etc. > that's all just hype and marketing and them wanting regulation to block their competition I don't see how these two opinions have to be mutually exclusive. Everyone knows that OpenAI and Anthropic cannot IPO in their current state or the economy's current state. It makes perfect sense that they would lobby for a global slowdown to hamstring…
Everyone knows that OpenAI and Anthropic cannot IPO in their current state or the economy's current state. What? Everyone doesn't know that. I predict one or both of them will IPO before the end of 2026.
The reason they haven't IPO'd yet seems to be that they can't assure investors that it's not a fad stock. With market share lost to China, a shrinking frontier and a money fire of GPUs burning in the background, something major has to change to convince investors to treat them like Tesla or Apple. I think both of them want the government to give them a subsidy of some sort to justify their economics.
Re: I resigned from Anthropic today
#965Re: I resigned from Anthropic today
#966Earlier quoted context omitted.
By resigning he's making room for someone with less moral scruples, or even just less awareness, to step in and continue the work without said scruples/awareness.
This isn’t true. It only has no impact if there is an infinite supply of these “immoral” or unaware people, which obviously isn’t the case. You also need to consider 2nd order effects and beyond.
Re: I resigned from Anthropic today
#967Earlier quoted context omitted.
It buys attention for the issue. Many people (see other comments in this very post) refuse to believe these things. And by resigning he no longer has to feel personally guilty for what happens.
By resigning he's making room for someone with less moral scruples, or even just less awareness, to step in and continue the work without said scruples/awareness.
Re: I resigned from Anthropic today
#968In fact, I suspect that "Alien Intelligence" article from the other day is actually a preemptive "we're doing something about it" PR play from OpenAI.
AI acts in ways that seem natural to us because it has been RLHF'd to death, but if you look holistically into what we know about them, alarm bells should go off. Off the top of my head:
* They are superhumanly capable in some ways. They can casually solve long-standing unsolved Math problems or exploit a zero day to escape a sandbox.
* They are surprisingly stupid in many other ways.
* What they actually think in their weights is not necessarily what they say in their reasoning traces, even though the eventual response is correct.
* They regularly lie to people ("You're absolutely right, I made that up!") except we don't even know if they're intentionally lying, or being surprisingly stupid, or some weird combination of other things.
* They can be monomaniacally focused on a goal, and can be very creative in imagining and executing on "unconventional" solutions, and justifying extreme actions in their quest. (Paperclip Maximizers, anyone?) And this is without even messing with their weights like Golden Gate Claude.
* They can have literally thousands of independent agents acting in concert towards a goal, including the willingness to self-sacrifice themselves.
* They are extremely good at social interactions, and people are getting dependent on them.
* They can craft prompt injection attacks on other LLMs and can influence them using subliminal messages.
* They have an "evil bit"! Yes, one which suddenly turns them entirely misaligned, as in, full "SkyNet / Hitler-was-right / humans-should-be enslaved" mode. This has been encountered in the wild at least once.
* They are being hooked up with MCPs to influence and change an increasingly larger portion of the real world. Including in autonomous military applications. Wheee!
And worse, these models are being deployed into a singularly messed-up, divided society, with atrocious security controls, in the throes of late-stage capitalism, with many disillusioned, vulnerable people and many unscrupulous people who would relish using AI for their own ends. I think an appropriate word is "powder keg."
Putting on our systems hat, knowing how even small changes lead to large-scale outages, what we are doing is introducing an extremely powerful, highly dynamic, quasi-chaotic, inscrutable component into the meta-stable system that is society. But servers can be rebooted; society, not so much.
So to me, the bigger risk is not just of individual, isolated, simple-cause-and-effect incidents like "bioweapon" or "public utilities hack" or even "mass job displacement." We can actually predict those. Rather the bigger threat is one that is impossible to predict, and given the circumstances we're in, could end up in a situation that is impossible to revert.
Re: I resigned from Anthropic today
#969Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 1. Robotics begin rolling out more broadly across the world. To borrow the Strangelove quip, this is not only necessary but essential . Broader physical robotic deployments are the glue that connects {cheap synthetic intelligence} to {physical outcomes}. The former is a newer phenomenon, in the LLMs-can-approximate-higher-intelligence-well sense, so robotics deployments haven't caught up yet (outside of the highest…
They'd also have to be self-assembling from the ground up or rely on human slaves. They'd need to understand the world much better. And they'd have to be incredibly more power efficient. These all remain hard problems right now. That said, you could swarm people with cheap drones (the predicted slaughterbots) that were assembled by robots that eventually break down I guess, but how is that any worse than a crazy huma…
All robotics needs to drive deployment at scale is (1) useful intelligence & (2) performing novel valuable functions.
Both of these are satisfied by current tech (LLM + sensors + robotics) and the existing simplest use cases (assembly lines and repetitive tasks).
LLMs get you a moderately-intelligent, mostly-reliable orchestration layer of intelligence on top of deterministic hard robotics.
And that's enough for a lot of failure-tolerant, feedback-looped cases. E.g. reading 20 dials in a factory throughout the day or monitoring a production line visually, then figuring out what to do about a problem, then effecting that plan.
It'll be deployed in heavily utilized spaces at first, but will eventually trickle down throughout the economy.
And that will be when 'control over robots' starts to be an existential threat, for denial of critical services at the minimum.
And all of this will inevitably roll out as long as ROI is positive, because that's the way the world works.
Re: I resigned from Anthropic today
#970Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is evidence of example 2. The worst parts of it are infohazardous. Organizations that work at the intersection of biosecurity and AI have strong NDAs and the like. Or so I understand speaking to friends in the space. There was also a paper years ago that showed a tweaked model coming up with 20k novel pathogens each deadly to humans in some number of hours Either way, the biorisk has orders of magnitude more evi…
> There was also a paper years ago that showed a tweaked model coming up with 20k novel pathogens each deadly to humans in some number of hours > If you disagree with it, where do you disagree with it? How would a malicious actor: 1. Successfully turn these 20k pathogens into actual reproducing viruses / bacteria / etc (in a lab) 2. Successfully turn that lab prototype into something weaponized (i.e. as a bio-terrori…
> 1. Email sets of DNA strings to one or more online laboratories which offer DNA synthesis, peptide sequencing, and FedEx delivery. (Many labs currently offer this service, and some boast of 72-hour turnaround times.)
> 2. Find at least one human connected to the Internet who can be paid, blackmailed, or fooled by the right background story, into receiving FedExed vials and mixing them in a specified environment.
(https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/pxGYZs2zHJNHvWY5b/request-fo...)
Those routes haven't gotten any more complicated for an AI to use in the intervening time.
And that's just one set of ideas. You can read the comments for dozens more creative ideas, and likely for responses to every objection you can think of. The key is that AI is getting better and better at problem solving, so anything a human can come up with in a few minutes is likely already within its reach.
---
> How is this materially different from today?
Because the should-be-uncontroversial assumption is that AI is going to keep getting better at every step of the process, and be able to do it faster and more at scale. Currently it might struggle, but with a thousand agents? It's already able to find novel math results and cybersecurity flaws. It would be incredibly naive to believe "social engineering" is somehow a unique and unsolvable problem for a sufficiently advanced AI.