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

Claude Corps

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–127 of 127 posts

Re: Claude Corps

#121

Post by gwbas1c »

pandoro wrote: post #55
gwbas1c wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey, think critically about where you are on the internet. You're on a message board run by YCombinator, who's stated goal is to teach people to run startups. Startups are inherently disruptive. When one business disrupts another, people lose their jobs. Companies going out of business, either because of disruption, or because they ran themselves poorly, or other reasons, is part of the normal business cycle. Otherwi…

I see your point, but in this case we are not talking about disruption at the scale of a product category, vertical, or even an entire industry. AI companies are trying to disrupt entire sectors of the economy at the same time: knowledge work/white collar jobs, creative work (design, photo, video, ...), medical professions, etc. They are recognizing themselves in their economic policy framework that the lowest level…

> They are recognizing themselves in their economic policy framework that the lowest level of unemployment potentially caused would be 5% (they also mention 10% and "unprecedented levels of unemployment").

Every tech boom I've seen in my life includes people letting their imagination running away and greatly overestimating how adoption will take place. Often adoption is slower, but much more pervasive as younger generations use it when they become adults.

Translation: I believe AI's disruption will be much slower than a lot of people claim it will be; and the change will be (cough) "slow" enough that most people will be able to retire or change their careers before they are materially impacted.

Re: Claude Corps

#122

Post by rayiner »

pandoro wrote: post #51

Taken verbatim from Anthropic’s Economic Policy Framework ( https://www.anthropic.com/policy-on-the-ai-exponential/epf ): > We are not seeking job displacement. We are working to prevent or minimize it. Some amount of displacement, though we cannot say how much, may be an intrinsic consequence of the technology, and our responsibility is to prepare for it and respond to it. That is what this framework is for. > Whate…

> economy that are usually underfunded and where job security is already quite bad (non-profits, NGOs)

If it works, using AI to cut jobs in the non-profit sector would be a good thing. Those jobs are overhead (necessary overhead, but overhead nonetheless) that reduces how much donor money actually makes it to the people it’s supposed to help. If AI can eliminate those jobs, that means a larger share of money that’s donated will actually get used for providing services.

Re: Claude Corps

#123

Post by gwbas1c »

watwut wrote: post #111
gwbas1c wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey, think critically about where you are on the internet. You're on a message board run by YCombinator, who's stated goal is to teach people to run startups. Startups are inherently disruptive. When one business disrupts another, people lose their jobs. Companies going out of business, either because of disruption, or because they ran themselves poorly, or other reasons, is part of the normal business cycle. Otherwi…

> Startups are inherently disruptive. They are not, the disruption itself becoming the praiseworthy goal was not there initially. Initially, the rhetoric was about creating new things, building companies and booming economy. It changed into disruption only later. At some point, disrupting became the praised thing, even if you was in the loss the whole time and did not really produced anything better.

Uh, no; it's worth skimming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Innovator%27s_Dilemma to understand. Innovation always disrupts something else.

> Initially, the rhetoric was about creating new things, building companies and booming economy.

The "new things" always disrupt something else. IE, a mechanized excavator disrupts people who made their living digging ditches.

BTW, were you around Silicon Valley in the 2005-2015 decade? The people making AI were easy to find and were very clearly "about creating new things, building companies and booming economy".

Re: Claude Corps

#125

Post by fakedang »

TZubiri wrote: post #110
fakedang wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I'd place less emphasis on the "creating" part and more emphasis on the "marketing" part. If Dario could shut up about how jobs are outdated, that would be nice. His quotes simply give more ammunition to incompetent CEOs trying to cut costs. It also goes without saying that a certain segment of jobs are simply bullshit jobs that are prone to automation anyways. But without those jobs, you're also cutting off…

But do you have any example of Anthropic products that aim to replace workers?

It doesn't matter if they can or cannot. Every marketing copy in Anthropic is about replacing workers. Even their job listings state "This position may be replaced by AI within a year.".

Re: Claude Corps

#126

Post by b112 »

flextheruler wrote: post #118
b112 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI companies are trying to disrupt entire sectors of the economy at the same time Talk to news companies, which whether newspapers, magazines, radio or TV, are basically either literally gone, or a shadow of their former selves. The best way to compare this, as you say is to even larger constructs, to entire sectors of the economy. Because you can harken this to desktop computers, or to the Internet. Sector after sec…

Sure I'll do the same for those other industries. It took generations and many deaths after each industrial revolution to address the harms caused by the technology. People's complaints about economic disruption have been proven to be legitimate and require fighting. This will spill into violence if these criticisms are not taken seriously.

And yet unless you're a historian, most people are completely unaware of any of the violence which occurred as a result of prior disruption. Most aren't even aware there were protests, upset in the past, except perhaps due to a song about a miner, John Henry.

These prior points of 'fighting' and 'violence' are so inconsequential, that they don't even impinge upon the historical narrative of most nations. People know about war, civil war, even the hippy protests half a century ago.

And in the end? In every single case? Nothing happened to realistically slow that change. It happened regardless.

One of the issues with such change, is that we live in a world with national borders. This leaves individuals in nations with two choices. Improve efficiency (by replacing humans with more efficient methods), or alternative? Companies with more efficient methods, in other countries, will drive your local companies out of business.

Which means you lose any tax revenue, resource extraction revenue, "head office" revenue, and on and on. And of course, whatever humans are level after the reorg, "management", well those jobs go to that other country too.

Literally if you win in terms of preventing change, you lose.

In the context of all of this, legitimate or not isn't really relevant. And fighting or not is in that same category. Nothing will stop the changes coming. Nothing.

If we were in the same room, you would hear a typically exceptionally optimistic person, speaking in a very sad voice.

Re: Claude Corps

#127

Post by binary132 »

parodysbird wrote: post #71
binary132 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“We are not seeking virtual torture caused by Roko’s Basilisk. We are working to prevent or minimize virtual torture caused by it. Some amount of virtual torture, though we cannot say how much, may be an intrinsic consequence of the technology, and our responsibility is to prepare for it and respond to it. That is what this framework is for.”

I never know how earnestly to take any Roko's Basilisk mention

How is it difficult to make the connection between a thought experiment about a world-eating AI monster, Anthropic marketing their AI as a world-eating monster, and Anthropic accelerating frontier development of their world-eating monster as hard as possible possibly being a little tiny bit icky and cynical when they tell us they’re totally trying to save us from it and stuff, bro?
Post reply on HN