731–740 of 946 posts
Dario is only interested in regulatory capture.
Before Anthropic, I worked at Cruise for four years as it competed against Waymo. The culture rewarded (and demanded) moving quickly, trusting that the company could empirically discover the risks that the robot cars posed and iteratively solve them to keep up with the rate at which it was scaling out its technology. There was very little interest or appetite for coordinating or collaborating with other AV companies…
>It’s a beautiful Saturday morning with my family here in the East Bay. While I hope we have many more years, I don’t know how many more Saturdays I’ll be able to play outside with my kids in the sunshine so I’m going to make the most of the time we have. Is there a social media training programme at Anthropic/OAI where they teach you to hint at some vague end-of-the-world scenario? They all sound the same.
One day I will say fuck it and run for president with my sole policy being fire and brimstone upon San Francisco and its vicinity.
At what point do we stop engaging with Anthropic’s leadership in good faith and acknowledge their track record, - no open weights - can’t use claude to research AI - train on everyone else’s IP and sell it back to them - 8 regulatory capture attempts and counting - so controlling they are the only US company blacklisted by the US government This is not effective altruism / rationalism gone wild, it’s just monopolisti…
In fact, I would say that the Occam’s razor explanation is not that they are seeking regulatory capture, but that they earnestly believe in the x-risk, and that they are the most thoughtful and capable people to address it
You may disagree, you may think that they are delusional or have a God complex. Those are valid opinions. But I don’t believe that this is all a elaborate ruse for commercial gain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nah. I'm definitely going to blame the people who built a trivially exploitable system and got rich off it while everyone else has to deal with the consequences. By the way, you didn't commit theft. It's more like credit card fraud. User just disputes the charge and it kind of disappears. The banking system just absorbs it, because the optimal amount of fraud is non-zero. https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/optima…
> User just disputes the charge and it kind of disappears. The banking system just absorbs it, No it doesn’t. > It's all priced in. So you admit awareness that fraud loss doesn’t kind of disappear . We all pay for it, either via higher merchant fees or higher interest rates, sometimes both, on card purchases.
And that's their own deliberate choice too: they chose this instead of building an actually secure system. Passing these costs to the customer is the real victim blaming here, and it should be straight up illegal.
Sadly not enough countries enforce caps on credit card fees, but some do, and more should follow suit. They should be forced to eat the losses caused by their own choices, not get bailed out by pushing the costs on to customers or whatever.
At what point do we stop engaging with Anthropic’s leadership in good faith and acknowledge their track record, - no open weights - can’t use claude to research AI - train on everyone else’s IP and sell it back to them - 8 regulatory capture attempts and counting - so controlling they are the only US company blacklisted by the US government This is not effective altruism / rationalism gone wild, it’s just monopolisti…
I have many issues with Anthropic, but I will say that their actions are fully consistent with a group of people who earnestly believe that AI is extremely dangerous In fact, I would say that the Occam’s razor explanation is not that they are seeking regulatory capture, but that they earnestly believe in the x-risk, and that they are the most thoughtful and capable people to address it You may disagree, you may think…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Military action against whom? the US can’t even handle Iran let alone China.
America doesn't want to pay the price of handling Iran. There's a difference. Clearly the US could conquer Iran but it requires a land war with mass casualties, not just sporadic bombing. Obviously China is in an entirely different league.
And Iran has wisely not provoked the US public by launching terrorist attacks against the “homeland”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are incorrectly cynical. They are telling you things are bad, and because you refuse to countenance they could be worse, you assume they must be better to comply with your mandate to disbelieve. A true cynic looks at the statements by the AI labs, assumes things are worse because the labs want to seem better than they truly are. And it takes a special kind of mass delusion to drive a sane person to think “AI is c…
You're asserting correctness with no facts to offer of your own, just speculation and your own biased assumptions. What if consolidating AI into a highly regulated cartel, with no chance of upstart competition ruining their position, is the scenario that leads to the worst possible outcome?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> OpenAI / Anthropic models have largely stopped advancing I'm shocked anyone could conclude this. This year it became common for people to entirely delegate coding to AI (I know many competent programmers/researchers who do this now). Progress in math has just been insane. An internal model at OAI just resolved one of the most celebrated open problems in mathematics. If anything, progress has accelerated.
> This year it became common for people to entirely delegate coding to AI This has been the case for around 2 years now, more reliably - a year. We've mostly stayed there since then. Saying that more people started doing it isn't indicative of significant improvement. Some people just started doing it later. I can't speak about math because I haven't used AI for that application, but I know that there hasn't been any…
Dario, Sam, and Elon are all on the same page on this. So it's either they truly think AI is going to kill us all, or there's some other motives at play here. I don't think these people could possibly agree on the color of the sky, so what could the other possible motives be, based on what we know? OpenAI / Anthropic models have largely stopped advancing - that's not a good look when you're pre-IPO and Chinese models…
I mean it is literally economy 101: some capitalists getting on the top using free market, and then try to use government to remove free market so their top position were secured from any competitors.