This reads like the morons who say, "you want higher taxes, well go ahead and send the government a check!"
Utter stupidity
David Sacks: OpenAI and Anthropic Don't Need Regulations to Pace Frontier Models
261–269 of 269 posts
Re: David Sacks: OpenAI and Anthropic Don't Need Regulations to Pace Frontier Models
#262Earlier quoted context omitted.
Source? Just "that's a plausible motivation"? Cause that's pretty terrible proof.
Source? on HN you can say whatever you want. Your own opinion, without even facts to back it up. The more confident you sound the more convincing you are.
Well, smart people usually try to base their opinions on specific information instead of pulling things out of their ass. A whistleblower revealing information. Internal documents laying out a strategy, or even a desire, to conspire. Something that leads one to conclude that a conspiracy is taking place. In the absence of such information, it's just making something up, or in other words, complete bullshit. So asking for a source is trying to give that person the benefit of the doubt that they aren't just a conspiracy theorist and that they might actually have a good reason for believing what they just said.
Re: David Sacks: OpenAI and Anthropic Don't Need Regulations to Pace Frontier Models
#263Earlier quoted context omitted.
Source? Just "that's a plausible motivation"? Cause that's pretty terrible proof.
You don't need to ask for sources, when what is being said is clearly opinion. The source is the person who posted it.
Well, smart people usually try to base their opinions on specific information instead of pulling things out of their ass. A whistleblower revealing information. Internal documents laying out a strategy, or even a desire, to conspire. Something that leads one to conclude that a conspiracy is taking place. In the absence of such information, it's just making something up, or in other words, complete bullshit. So asking for a source is trying to give that person the benefit of the doubt that they aren't just a conspiracy theorist and that they might actually have a good reason for believing what they just said.
Re: David Sacks: OpenAI and Anthropic Don't Need Regulations to Pace Frontier Models
#264Earlier quoted context omitted.
Going on Joe Rogan and having a million YouTube followers is absolutely the modern definition of mainstream. Also you appear to have been living in a different algorithmic bubble. Joe Biden was literally on stage multiple times saying everything I listed. If a democrat US president isnt mainstream, I don’t think your assessment of reality is accurate.
Joe Rogan also famously had Alex Jones and Bob Lazar, multiple times as a guest… I wouldn’t turn around and claim that makes them mainstream.
You and I both know who all these names are without needing explanation. Podcasts are the mainstream media now.
CNN also has had Alex Jones on.
Re: David Sacks: OpenAI and Anthropic Don't Need Regulations to Pace Frontier Models
#265Could this be that the AI companies are seeing progress slow down and need to seed a narrative to explain it? Not clear from outside. Could it be to slow down burn before an IPO to juice profitability projections? More plausible. Kind of hard to take the frontier labs at their word.
This is happening now because of hugging face attack and Anthropic researchers coming out publicly saying they think there's a significant chance AI will wipe out humanity within a decade. It's happening precisely because progress is happening too fast and frontier labs are starting to lose control.
Re: David Sacks: OpenAI and Anthropic Don't Need Regulations to Pace Frontier Models
#266Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yup. Sacks has been so consistently catastrophically wrong about everything else (especially geopolitics), this prompts me to reconsider my opinion on this. [edit: +consistently]
As you should. Sacks takes the contrarian moronic take on everything, and the people that are correct and prescient (idk maybe all of the people who ended up as CEO's of frontier labs and Turing award winners in AI?) are saying that AGI is a very real risk of humanity's extinction.
Indeed, although now we are assured by the thing occupying the President's chair that we need nothing but "STRONG AND SMART (High IQ!) PRESIDENT" (as if we had one) to handle the problem, so I should believe that, right?...
At the very least, Dario Amodei is clearly correct that we need at least more mandatory transparency among all of them.
And Sacks is absolutely wrong, since individually self-disarming without some kind of overseeing referee and force to police such a disarming is a guaranteed losing move, so no one can start the self-regulation system.
You've properly nailed Sacks — contrarian moron is exactly it! His shtick does seem to be just taking the stupid opposite take on everything and acting like it is brilliant. The only mystery is why anyone takes him seriously.
Re: David Sacks: OpenAI and Anthropic Don't Need Regulations to Pace Frontier Models
#267Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's an obnoxious form of discourse when someone says X and the response is "obviously you're lying and you really mean Y, which is terrible". By all accounts Dario sincerely believes that AI has the potential to substantially improve the lives of everyone; that's my view as well. And it might be wrong! In which case you should offer evidence against it, rather than making empty claims that your opponent is a lying l…
Which AI CEO hasn't been gyrating between scaremongering and selling the shining city on a hill?
How come you think these things are at odds? You realize there are always going to be risks in building anything significant? It's completely valid to talk one day about all the great things your product will do, while the next day discussing the risks in building your product irresponsibly. In fact, you want someone who is open and honest about the risks, otherwise it seems like they are concealing something, or aren't acting responsibly.
Re: David Sacks: OpenAI and Anthropic Don't Need Regulations to Pace Frontier Models
#268Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah it's either that or the scientists are right about their field of study. Absolutely shocking and depressing how many people are willing to trust this Capitalist Realism hunch over the world in front of their eyes.
I get your point. There’s a lot hysteria right now. However I think people are willing to trust a capitalist realism hunch because over the last >20 years, that hunch is usually going to be right.
How so? What are you even talking about?
Re: David Sacks: OpenAI and Anthropic Don't Need Regulations to Pace Frontier Models
#269Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get your point. There’s a lot hysteria right now. However I think people are willing to trust a capitalist realism hunch because over the last >20 years, that hunch is usually going to be right.
The exact same thing can be said of climate science though, and that one turned out to be very, very real.
Yes though I would argue climate science has >50 years of multi institution independent study to back up the assertions.