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

Dario, Please

pop.rdi.sh

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 235 posts

Re: Dario, Please

#181

Post by Bud »

edot wrote: post #146
ball_of_lint wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know the proverb "If you owe the bank $100, that's your problem. If you owe the bank $100 million, that's the bank's problem" Same thing here - If they build it and it does $100 in damages (and we arrest them for it), that's their problem. If they build it and it does $100B in damages, that's everyone's problem. Even if they do get arrested after the fact. Yes we should have charges and damages for everything on…

Why have any laws then? If laws can't prevent something, only punish it after the fact (which I agree is true)? Yet we have laws. People generally follow them because they expect to be caught and punished. If we passed a law that said the CEO of any company that deploys an LLM that commits a crime gets punished as if they personally did the crime (so, basically instant life sentence if it's even a simple crime times…

[dead]

Re: Dario, Please

#182

Post by [deleted] »

turtletontine wrote: post #134
npunt wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't take that software line seriously. While it's not 'solved' (if it ever could be, given it is a human endeavor), the degree to which software development has been transformed in the last 6-12mo is absolutely astounding. If we weren't so quick to adapt to new realities and find flaws, it would scarcely be believable.

… and on the other hand, it feels like everything I use has become way buggier and unstable in a similar time frame. Websites, apps, iOS, the only exception is offline open source tools which run locally. (And to be fair, many of those have slower development cycles and I am likely using older versions.) This is just my experience, so inherently anecdotal, but it really feels pervasive across a ton of different thing…

[deleted]

Re: Dario, Please

#183

Post by plastic041 »

mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #171
plastic041 wrote: post #163

It's really frustrating that Dario acts as if he's not the CEO of one of the world's most advanced AI companies. He can just slow down his own company. Of course he doesn't want that. He wants to slow down other companies, but not his own. Also, regarding the incidents: Neither he nor Sam Altman takes responsibility for those incidents. You can't say, "Wow, someone's agent is gone rogue; let's slow down" when you are…

He can slow down his own company kind of like how Zelenskyy can just declare peace in Ukraine. It works a lot better if you can get the other sides to agree.

Give that Dario is one of the frontiers of LLM development, literally started the LLM race, and have been dominating the market, so he'd be Russia, if we have to use the war analogy.

He took every benefits of being frontiers and now he's kicking the ladder.

Re: Dario, Please

#184

Post by csomar »

edot wrote: post #146
ball_of_lint wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know the proverb "If you owe the bank $100, that's your problem. If you owe the bank $100 million, that's the bank's problem" Same thing here - If they build it and it does $100 in damages (and we arrest them for it), that's their problem. If they build it and it does $100B in damages, that's everyone's problem. Even if they do get arrested after the fact. Yes we should have charges and damages for everything on…

Why have any laws then? If laws can't prevent something, only punish it after the fact (which I agree is true)? Yet we have laws. People generally follow them because they expect to be caught and punished. If we passed a law that said the CEO of any company that deploys an LLM that commits a crime gets punished as if they personally did the crime (so, basically instant life sentence if it's even a simple crime times…

If you allow the law to stop you from doing something because of a hypothetical danger, it’ll get severely abused. I come from a country that does and still does this and it’s very ugly.

Re: Dario, Please

#186

Post by resonious »

jan_m_savage wrote: post #185

great post. I also like the author's writing style-- he/she really knows how to write well.

Agreed. I think LLMs have actually made good writing stand out more. Now everyone who wasn't a great writer is just producing Claude-isms which are easy to detect. If it doesn't smell like Claude, it's probably good.

Re: Dario, Please

#187

Post by edbaskerville »

luma wrote: post #66
kypro wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if the power of nuclear warheads were democratised we'd be even safer – HN, probably.

The 80 years thing actually happened. One can argue about MAD and the nuclear threat, but we don't have to guess at what happened. It worked.

The problem with MAD is it's a deterministic framework. It doesn't properly account for the risk of a war caused by mistake.

If Stanislav Petrov hadn't been in the chain of command, MAD might not have worked. And it could still fail to work in the future.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alar... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov

Re: Dario, Please

#188

Post by pona-a »

skybrian wrote: post #116
chao- wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A starting note: I don't disagree with you (about systemic issues), but I want to explain what I understand as the perspective you are responding to. A "scapegoat" is someone who is incorrectly blamed for someone else's errors or sins. The perspective you're responding to is this: They built the system, they run the system, they have continuously warned "This system is dangerous!", and yet persisted. That is not bein…

Sometimes in "normalization of deviance" situations, there isn't anyone specifically to blame. I wouldn't make an assumption that you can find anyone particularly blameworthy without doing an investigation first.

The rate at which these "labs" are creating these incidents is simply staggering.

Imagine we made nuclear weapons a private industry, had CEOs bragging how they have enough warheads to blow the Earth to smithereens, and then they "accidentally" nuked three cities over a short period of time each, saying they lost control, or rather couldn't contain their semi-autonomous weapon. All somehow managing to turn the PR around from their abject incompetence and towards SciFi visions of mankind hunted by self-replicating bombs.

Re: Dario, Please

#189

Post by 27183 »

steveBK123 wrote: post #38
vb-8448 wrote: post #26

> “a swarm of agents could be capable of taking over the entire internet with a persistent botnet.” I'm wondering why no one is mentioning the "accountability" word. Why these companies are allowed to damage others with impunity? Start making managers pay the price for their actions, and watch how the models magically slow down on their own.

> “a swarm of agents could be capable of taking over the entire internet with a persistent botnet.” I also find this whole "its so good, its scary" flex a little less impressive when you consider they access to millions of GPUs? The AI buildout has been one of, if not the largest, focussed capital investment in history. The 2 big AI labs are the final customer for something like 20-33% of all datacenter compute in th…

IIUC it's an open question whether they have the electricity to actually run all the "compute" they own on paper.

That aside, I'm not sure why it's particularly interesting they have all this "compute" (let's just assume for the sake of argument it's all "live"--that is they can actually run workloads on all of the "compute" they have on paper). So what if it's the biggest amount ever? Why would that be meaningful? Is there some economically viable problem you're aware of that is somehow dominant in that way?

Re: Dario, Please

#190

Post by bonsai_spool »

llelouch wrote: post #161
hobom wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have such a trusted access program. "Life Sciences Verification Program: The LSVP is designed so that life sciences professionals can use Claude Mythos 5.1 with safeguards designed for professional research and development activities (while all other safeguards remain in place). In partnership with the US government, we have enrolled our first participants, and we plan to expand access to this program to the bro…

Lol. The person you are responding to literally had to google (or ask AI) one question and they would get the answer.

The program started two weeks ago
Post reply on HN