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

On AI regulation and messaging

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 572 posts

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#121

Post by pas »

spwa4 wrote: post #57
pas wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguably the question is whether it's economically feasible to self-host something similar. Are you self-hosting Google or Bing? No, but we have quite a huge ecosystem of full-text search tools with PageRank, with options to scale to almost Google scale (if you have the money). After all LLM training starts with the same crawl mechanism. As long as barriers to entry is not too high (ie. it makes sense to take the ris…

You're missing the point, what will happen is this: 1) in things like tax law, registering with city hall, dealings with the DMV, your phone subscription, insurance contract, ... you will find that one of the new fine prints in the contract will be that you're not allowed to use AI to communicate with them. 2) because of how SynthID works (you need the SynthID keys to verify, which are secret. So the only way to find…

this seems exactly the usual anti-consumer bullshit that is regulated state-by-state (or sometimes by (lack of) FCC/FTC effort, or by the CFPB that is now a zombie)

however, AI doesn't really influence this. already there's a lot of problem with things like Ticketmaster, Apple's walled garden, abuses of IP law (patent trolls, DMCA trolls), etc.

the insurance industry is a prime example of this. the suffering caused by power imbalance is incomprehensible, and yet there's not enough political will to address this.

sure, it's easily possible that some important aspects of our everyday lives will be worsened by bad AI regulation. but IMHO this is wholly an upstream problem, it's a symptom of bad politics. (a byproduct of the Zip2 to Tesla to "democracy with roman salute characteristics" pipeline.)

that said, obviously the foundation to have any chance of a nonpatological market to exist is that self-hosting has to be legal.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#122

Post by watwut »

mindwok wrote: post #67
kilpikaarna wrote: post #32

> I think it is fundamentally a crisis of trust. I think that ordinary people don’t trust companies, governments, or the tech industry and always suspect that we are cooking up some new way to screw them over. [...] > I don’t think that a glitzy marketing campaign with a positive spin (which some have advocated that Anthropic do) is the way to win back that trust — at this point, saying that AI will cure cancer is mo…

I think it's more reasonable than it sounds on the surface. People's jobs, the bubble, etc are societal level problems and well beyond what Anthropic could even hope to influence on their own. Curing cancer sounds insane, but it's also a research problem, not a societal level coordination problem. And one AI has already proved to help with breakthroughs (alphafold). IMO it makes sense for them to shoot for something…

> People's jobs, the bubble, etc are societal level problems and well beyond what Anthropic could even hope to influence on their own.

Anthropic is literally creating the bubble. It is not beyond their scope of influence, it is literally what they are consciously achieving.

As for peoples jobs, same actually applies. Anthropic is selling itself on dream of replacing jobs, even or especially where they are well aware AI does not perform that well. They are actively trying to replace people quickly before management notices it does not work well.

And also, they can influence how much their data centers contribute to global warming.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#126

Post by dyauspitr »

coldtea wrote: post #8
darkwater wrote: post #3

Why the comment submitted by jacquesm, who posted the link and it's not exactly an anonymous poster, that said "Apologies for linking to X but this is worth reading." has been flagged to death??

Maybe because "apologies for linking to X" is needless gaudy virtue signalling. Make it "Apologies for linking to Amodei" and we're talking.

Just seems like virtue to me.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#127

Post by inigyou »

anon-3988 wrote: post #64
pj_mukh wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The thing that will work is actually curing cancer. I think typical bubble behavior the leaders have set up the whole promise to fail. Everyone is expecting some faux super intelligence to come and find a cancer solution everyone else missed. However, it is just as likely that vanilla current LLM's will create enough of a productivity boost for back office automations in research heavy hospitals to create the space…

I mean they did solve the protein folding problem did they? NOt too far fetch to think it can automate cancer research or problem finding in some way.

The field of AI did very well in protein folding, but it was completely different from LLMs.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#128

Post by inigyou »

vrganj wrote: post #115
dgellow wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The effective altruist and longtermist crowd are into it as a religion. They would happily sacrifice anything human to satisfy their dreams of AI. They care way more about what the AI needs than their what their fellow humans need. We will end up with an AGI having better living and working conditions than humans and the whole AI industry will be clapping

It's an ideological thing. (We just had a conversation about ideology actually, remember?) Capitalism has always been a tension between capitalists, who want maximum return on capital and workers, who want pesky things like a living wage, sick leave or safe work conditions. For the longest time, the only power labor has had to get those things was the power of collective bargaining. No agreement with your workers mea…

I wish I was smart enough to credibly promise capitalists they could replace all their workers.

It doesn't matter that I can't do it. They'll pay me lots of money if they think I can.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#129

Post by inigyou »

podgorniy wrote: post #66
pu_pe wrote: post #12

> Overall my view is that AI is structurally a technology that tends to concentrate power, for reasons that have nothing to do with regulation (more to do with the extreme implications of the scaling laws). Open-weights do help some with this but are nowhere near a sufficient solution because they simply shift the concentration somewhat to those with the most compute and chips (which are roughly the frontier labs plu…

Swap that point about AI with "electricity". Everything runs on electricity it's "a technology that tends to concentrate power" (no pun intended). The electricity providers must be too powerful... But somehow electricity providers aren't that powerful. Unless there is no competition in sight... The point "AI is structurally a technology that tends to concentrate power" is not that correct. They need this statement to…

Trump already banned solar and offshore wind, in order to concentrate power (literally) with the oil companies.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#130

Post by Depurator »

rimliu wrote: post #54
Depurator wrote: post #22

It will be interesting to see what kind of progress in biology and medicine they will preview during the fall. He does make a good point that most of the progress so far have not been material in the sense of providing real positive outcomes for ordinary people. Or even for the HN crowd, when will we see e.g. "Mythos aided research discovers 10 new viable battery technologies"

None?

Fair enough, help navigating complex and bureaucratic processes, personal validation and a more tailored search engine do provide some value
Post reply on HN