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

891–900 of 946 posts

Re: We must pace the frontier

#891

Post by jonas21 »

ElProlactin wrote: post #827
deepwoods wrote: post #818

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see what you mean. I meant more that they genuinely believe the tech is dangerous, not that they are necessarily doing the right thing.

If they genuinely believe the tech is dangerous, how would it be acting in "good faith" to keep developing it, prepping an IPO, etc.?

The entire essay is about stopping development until it can be made more safe, with specific ideas on how to do that.

The fact that he would suggest this despite preparing for an IPO is an even stronger signal that it's in good faith -- it will almost certainly delay or reduce the valuation of the IPO.

Re: We must pace the frontier

#892

Post by anon291 »

adsharma wrote: post #846
anon291 wrote: post #839

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As much as I love all these technologies, they don't have any direction that approaches the efficacy of a transformer

You can have a transformer based index built on top of a graph database. Much of the explainability tech (people who prefer "alignment" also prefer "mechanistic interpretability") is reverse engineering the real world graph that's hiding in the weights. https://research.google/pubs/the-case-for-learned-index-stru...

That's literally not useful for the sort of applications people want to use transformers for.

Re: We must pace the frontier

#893

Post by boshalfoshal »

qnleigh wrote: post #888
boshalfoshal wrote: post #807

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes these guys are completely delusional. 2 years ago a model could barely solve the AMC, 1 year ago it got IMO gold, and this year models have solved multiple millenium problems. Even 1 year ago ai code was just unusable (claude code only became available 1.5 years ago!) and now basically everyone I know from independent shops all the way to faang and anthropic/openai themselves exclusively use some AI agent to code…

Waitwaitwait multiple millennium problems? What was the other one??? Increasing a bound on the fraction of Reimann zeros on the critical line doesn't count; even Anthropic says they don't think this line of work will lead to a solution.

Navier Stokes, and _allegedly_ the Hodge Conjecture and Birch–Swinnerton-Dyer.

Re: We must pace the frontier

#894

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

panarky wrote: post #869
FusionX wrote: post #782

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're already seeing anti-AI sentiments, but the movement is still fringe with a vocal minority. However, that'll change soon without alignment. Without self-intervention, there will invariably be future incidents that can cause major economic impact, leaked private data, loss of life (directly/indirectly) etc. Once that happens, their social capital is wiped. It'll be an avalanche of lawsuits and overzealous regulat…

>> I don’t understand all the comments assuming that RSI is the real threat here > leaked private data, loss of life This smells like more of a money move than a safety move. Amodei is proposing to form a cartel of American frontier labs. They all agree to shift compute away from cash-burning research and training toward cash-generating inference. Then tacitly agree not to compete on price. They'll install independen…

Why do you think China is release free and open models?

To undercut the cartel before it has a grasp on anything. This is a well known strategy of undercut until you are the majority that China has used multiple times (steel and aluminum for one).

Re: We must pace the frontier

#895

Post by nwienert »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #759
nwienert wrote: post #751

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anthropic gives you much more compute with their $200 plan, inclusive of resets, and this has been true for a very long time. There was only a brief window of time that the opposite was true.

> Anthropic gives you much more compute That does not match my experience. I switched away from Anthropic to OpenAI roughly a month ago, and it's almost comical how much more usage I'm getting out of this subscription. I migrated from Anthropic's 5x plan to OpenAI's 5x plan, and eventually upgraded to 20x after I was able to statistically verify that OpenAI plans were almost exact multipliers of the Plus plan, exactl…

There was a period of time Codex was better, they slowly cut it back by my estimate 3x a few months ago.

I've verified this with the heaviest users I know, I've run the numbers myself over and over.

I have too many max accounts on each to not know this. My Claude accounts typically are doing 2x the number of sessions, and every single week the Codex accounts run out faster even with all these resets. I can easily burn a full weeks usage in a half day, it's closer to 1.5 with CC.

Re: We must pace the frontier

#896

Post by [deleted] »

killyouridols wrote: post #464
helloplanets wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment reads like Dario's a random tech blogger who's personally submitting these to HN

“Dario” is quite literally a random figure that just emerged out of nowhere one day. It’s not like it’s Eric Schmidt’s next company or Tim Ferris came out of the woodwork or even some Jack Dorsey backed underdog nobody’s heard of. No, he’s more like an avatar with no history placed on the AI stage by the industry itself. I’d respect a tech blogger’s opinion on the issue more, even if I reference them casually by firs…

[deleted]

Re: We must pace the frontier

#897

Post by nwienert »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #800
nwienert wrote: post #751

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anthropic gives you much more compute with their $200 plan, inclusive of resets, and this has been true for a very long time. There was only a brief window of time that the opposite was true.

I've used the $200 dollar Anthropic plan @ Opus4/4.1, 4.5 and 4.8, and the $200 OAI plan from GPT5-6, and at every point in time my anecdotal experience is that the OAI limits are FAR more generous. I could consistently burn my weekly limits in ~36h on Opus, but it's hard to do it in less than ~72h with GPT.

It's really not a question, in every dimension I've confirmed it including socially across a lot of the heaviest users. There was a short period of time this was true it's not been true for months now.

Re: We must pace the frontier

#898

Post by guelo »

sejje wrote: post #793
pants2 wrote: post #756

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't know exactly what the limits of AI improvement on our current infrastructure are, though. If the human brain is 20W, and a datacenter is 1GW, then maybe that datacenter can be 50 million times smarter than a human. If that's not already a risk to humankind I don't know what is.

Is the datacenter gonna grow legs? Give me one datacenter, I'll keep it under control all by myself. Now, if some dumbasses start hooking up their data centers to...I don't know, like--robot factories? That sounds like a risk to humankind.

If we could agree on that, no LLMs connected to robot factories, that would be a great place to start regulation. Though 1) I don't think we could agree on that 2) it's already well under way 3) we have extremist anti-regulation ideologues in control of american government.
Post reply on HN