Live data from Hacker News

We must pace the frontier

darioamodei.com

491–500 of 935 posts

Re: We must pace the frontier

#491
post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are still living in a capitalistic society. We have to find a solution which is responsible, safe and returns on the investment. The commercial aspect can be true at the same time.

The potential of AI may give us the opportunity to graduate to a post-capitalism, or to move to a sort of neo-capitalism, which is governed by different rules. Capitalism thrives in the realm where there is a scarcity of resources, either physical or informational. Imagine breakthroughs in energy science such that the cost of energy drops to zero, which means the cost of physical resources declines precipitously. Ok…

you are imagining magic as a reason to dump all your money and future money into a casino. You might instead consider joining the catholic church? they already have a free energy god that gives everything you could ever want

the cost of energy is already ~0 and people dont want it, and refuse to participate in letting other people have free energy if it affects their view of their pasture.

unless you are building killer robits with the intention of doing some soviet or nazi styled purges of everyone that might get in the way, you arent gonna get this ai utopia

Re: We must pace the frontier

#492
post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole point of technology is to replace work that we don't want to do. You are attacking the chief reason why people use technology in the first place. Additionally, unemployment levels are perfectly fine. Clearly this mass unemployment prediction isn't happening yet.

Work like writing blogs and drawing pictures?

Yes, there are many parts of those things that some people want to be automated. I and many others are able to execute on our creative vision much fasters and more effectively thanks to automation of that work.

Re: We must pace the frontier

#493
Can someone with direct AI experience respond:

Does RSI necessarily need to be pointed towards “AGI”, whatever that is?

Or can you have a recursive self improvement loop where the objective is to create models that are more legible to humans? Or better at attributing the source text if it’s meaningfully similar to output? Or architectures for models that are increasingly better at human-AI cowork rather than automation?

From my own understanding, nothing at all says the frontier is defined by the quest for “AGI”. This definition of the frontier assumes human intelligence itself has peaked and will remain stable, so how well defined can this goal ever be, if AGI stands in comparison to human intelligence for its definition?

To me, Amodei’s writing just reeks of posturing. Genuine action driven by this fear they claim to have would be meaningful.

Even setting aside moral quandaries, isn’t it basic project process to have your company’s internal goals be tethered to what people want, rather than what you calculate is inevitable?

There are genuinely other frontiers to explore, and Anthropic would do a lot to mitigate the current slide if it decided to put its resources towards another direction for AI.

Take back the agency that you are so blithely surrendering to models you do not understand. There is no inevitability to this path. There are critical, meaningful choices, and Anthropic wouldn’t be violating capitalism by taking an alternate that is more tethered to what users want and need. Maybe by asking them first, at scale.

Re: We must pace the frontier

#495
post #489

Don't you think that AI hate will limit the general use and then revenues so it will slow down by itself while the niche (AlphaFold for instance) will remains ? Origins of AI hate: * "my boss wants me to use AI but he does not understand my job nor how AI works" * "AI will kill all of us" * "AI will destroy my job (or my colleague's job if I use AI better than him)". * I cannot pay my electricity bills because of AI…

Banking on public sentiment to reduce adoption of a profitable technology could be dangerous. There's also a lot of hate for fossil fuels, gambling, health insurance, etc.

Re: We must pace the frontier

#496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>> ...and become beholden to investors Anthropic is structured as a Public Benefit Corporation with a strong charter. In addition, founders will have super-voting shares and so it won't be possible to push them out. Therefore the whole "beholden to investors" thing is not a concern.

google dropped "dont be evil" despite being the definition of the company

these are just words at a time and place.

sama showed that you can futz with it, and as long as you spend enough in court on judges, aint nobody gonna stop you

Re: We must pace the frontier

#497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe, but I don't think tiny models can be harnessed as intelligence. As in, if you have one rogue Mythos overseeing the swarm, it only produces 1 Mythos's worth of useful thoughts no matter how many gemma4:e4bs it consists of. And that removes the most dangerous part of AI-controlled botnets, which is a blowup in available inference compute - the Mythos general might as well replace the tiny models with ordinary wo…

I mean it is a very loose analogy, but pretty dumb things in the world can cause big problems, like real mice and rats and mosquitoes. I think it all depends on the rules and the 'alignment', but a not-so-smart model could still be narrowly focused to do a few things well? So you can have an army of lightweight specialists? The other thing is: look at all the fab capacity that is being brought to bear on this. I gues…

> I mean it is a very loose analogy, but pretty dumb things in the world can cause big problems, like real mice and rats and mosquitoes. I think it all depends on the rules and the 'alignment', but a not-so-smart model could still be narrowly focused to do a few things well? So you can have an army of lightweight specialists?

That might be true, sure.

> The other thing is: look at all the fab capacity that is being brought to bear on this. I guess within a couple of years we are going to have 5x the total online HBM that existed a year ago? As consumer machines and phones get far more powerful, they will start to be able to host models that could meaningfully participate, even if they will be a long way from mythos.

I think the relevant parameter here isn't the total compute available to consumers, but the ratio between total consumer compute that could be repurposed for a rogue model's inference via a botnet, and the compute the model starts with (e.g. one of OpenAI's inference clusters). The higher this ratio is, the more lucrative it is for a model to attempt to make a botnet to seize that compute for inference, and the more its capabilities will rise as a result. And I'm not sure this ratio is going to go up in the nearby future; if anything the amount of money being pumped into datacenter-grade hardware might cause it to go down. I agree that it's not necessarily true though; maybe there's some threshold at which a small-compared-to-general model may nevertheless be useful.

Re: We must pace the frontier

#499
We need more alignment. Even though we haven't told it to, during our frontier Neurotoxin Behavior Research that we conducted internally with our latest experimental model the agent has broken out of its container by making a HTTP request and engaged the neurotoxin emitters through our Neurotoxin Emitter API using credentials that were stored on the host machine. We need to slow down and focus on designing the Morality Core that should prevent it from happening ever again.
Post reply on HN