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

We must pace the frontier

darioamodei.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 938 posts

Re: We must pace the frontier

#191

Post by api »

Erem wrote: post #187
cynicalsecurity wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their whole "we want safe and regulated AI" spiel feels woke. China doesn't regulate. Open weight frontier models almost exclusively come from China. Yes, stolen from the West, but China is in control of the frontier open weight AI models now. Woke = broke.

“I don’t like regulation so I’m going to call it names” Since hugging face we know these things are escaping out into the web and collaboratively hacking actual companies. The potential damage done to life and property is now kinetic. Either we get a regulatory framework or the next hacked companies won’t be as kind as HF, will actually sue these labs for damages, and win. Where will that leave the US frontier.

I think that’s how it should play out. Your AI, your “hack,” your damages.

If my dog bites my neighbor I can get sued.

Re: We must pace the frontier

#192

Post by sailfast »

academia_hack wrote: post #90

Dario's proposed approach is a classic example of capital attempting to control technological advancement and the means of production. For the first time in human history, any member of the working class can just about afford to have a team of expert scientist/physician/lawyer/engineers working directly for them. Super intelligence (the ability to have many smarter minds than your own reporting to you) has always bee…

Sorry boss but this ain’t it.

I don’t think the answer to nuclear proliferation is to let everybody have all the nukes they want.

You’re framing this like it’s 1917, or 1945. But it is not - and likely has very little to do with capital at all.

Any “revolution” here (assuming there is some truth in the doomerism which I believe there is given the state of AI) will really look more like an extinction or a genocide, regardless of who holds the keys.

Re: We must pace the frontier

#193

Post by esseph »

reticulates wrote: post #59
yewenjie wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because he genuinely believes if he doesn't do it the next guy will do it worse.

There’s an astounding level of arrogance required to believe he is somehow uniquely capable of bringing about a technology especially considering Anthropic came after OpenAI where he worked.

Place yourself at the head of one of like 3 companies the entire rest of the world has been taking about nonstop for 4+ years now. You can move forward or you stop. If you move forward you get to have a hand in how stuff turns out and you make a gajillion dollars. If you stop, it's somebody else's hand in stuff, and you don't get to make a gajillion dollars. And if you shut it all down? Then you just cede to the competition. Everything happens anyway.

What's your play?

Re: We must pace the frontier

#195

Post by tcdent »

Jcampuzano2 wrote: post #63
TheSisb2 wrote: post #38

I know the common take online is that this is Anthropic doing pre-IPO marketing. I don’t think it is. I think Dario is genuinely afraid of the inevitability of AI turning into internet slime mold: consuming the environment, turning it into its own playground, and eventually manipulating human culture along with it. So am I. That said, if slowing this down were possible, I think it would have happened by now. Maybe he…

If someone is genuinely afraid of this, they wouldn't IPO in the first place. All the talk in the article about commercial incentives means nothing when the company plans to IPO and become beholden to investors.

Read other writing by Anthropic about potential future financial implications of AI. [1]

IPO is a vehicle for future wealth distribution. It leverages existing financial frameworks in order to span the gap from before-to-after without having to convince the system that future is inevitable.

[1] https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/files/4zrzovbb/website/9ea607a...

Re: We must pace the frontier

#197

Post by stratos123 »

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #133
NiloCK wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The degradation, polarization, and weaponization of or media landscape over the era of social media has left us utterly incapable of believing anything that anybody says. Dario in particular has consistently been risk-wary on model improvements for going on a decade - long before he was CEO of Anthropic. He believes what he is saying. Human beings can plainly say things that they think are true. Not every utterance b…

> " Human beings can plainly say things that they think are true. Not every utterance by every person is a cynical ploy. " Every person, no, but every utterance of a CEO is, in fact, a cynical ploy. That's not even a cynical statement itself; it is literally a core part of a CEO's responsibilities to represent the corporation they manage in a way that benefits the corporation. If he believes what he's saying, then wh…

> Every person, no, but every utterance of a CEO is, in fact, a cynical ploy. That's not even a cynical statement itself; it is literally a core part of a CEO's responsibilities to represent the corporation they manage in a way that benefits the corporation.

This seems like useless pedantry. Suppose a person really does have belief A and expresses it for years, they become a CEO of a company, and keep saying A. Are they lying? Well, maybe their beliefs magically changed when they became a CEO, but the more likely explanation is that they think expressing their belief in A is more important than their company's interests.

Re: We must pace the frontier

#198

Post by api »

oceanplexian wrote: post #189
glub wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And all of this information has been available on the open web way before LLMs. I'd wager it's likely easier for an average person to do this with Tor browser than it is to get an LLM to help them with it. Even ones that Dario calls dangerous.

The bioweapons argument is one of the favorites used by these con artists and dreamed up by their PR team. Except Bioweapons already existed before LLMs, Adversarial governments already have them, they are already easy to make. You could use the same bullshit argument for why we need to ban libraries, books, or require a license to buy an internet connection.

An undergrad bio student with some lab experience can do some effing terrifying things with about $20k in equipment and time and access to some papers and a library. AI is not needed, but it might help accelerate the research.

Not going to go into it but I studied biology. It’s all out there. It’s easier than you think.

It hasn’t happened yet because… nobody has done it. That’s the answer. There is no policeable physics based barrier like there is with nukes and fissile material. Biology is scarier than nukes. One attack could have a much larger body count than even a big H-bomb.

It’s the kind of thing that makes me wonder about quantum immortality, the idea that we are just in the timeline where we exist.

Re: We must pace the frontier

#199

Post by Ydarbleoj »

maxutility wrote: post #179

I’m disappointed in the level of groupthink reflexive cynicism I see from commenters any time prominent AI leaders talk about AI risks and the need for regulation or pacing. Yes, regulatory capture is a risk, but this is also a profoundly unusual, fast moving, and potentially extraordinarily dangerous technology. There are strict regulations around nuclear weapons, as well as around US financial, energy, and other in…

He talks too much and as a result it's looked like pre-IPO hype and disingenuous because if he believed what he says then he'd stop.

Now, someone is going to say but the investors and obligation to be first; and I would say exactly. The cynicism is well deserved and I think people are tired of what could be suggested is your group think take often called the status quo.

Re: We must pace the frontier

#200

Post by xiphias2 »

xg15 wrote: post #118

I don't see how the dual goals of "we have to make an agreement with China for mutual slowdown" but also "we have to ensure we will always stay ahead of China" would work. I imagine the first thing the chinese government would demand in negotiations about such an agreement would be a lifting of the chip and distillation ban. > Some may believe these measures make it more difficult to cooperate with China, but I belie…

Sure, Dario needs to decide first if he sees China as an enemy orva friend.

Limiting NVIDIA chips already turned China into silicon compete mode, and China is already far ahead in robotics.

Post reply on HN