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

Policy on the AI Exponential

darioamodei.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 280 posts

Re: Policy on the AI Exponential

#161

Post by thewebguyd »

baq wrote: post #147
SilverElfin wrote: post #14

I have to be honest, I am tired of reading these arrogant, self-absorbed posts from Dario and Anthropic in general. Opening with this lord of the rings reference just feels like they are trying too hard and are untrustworthy. As annoying as their tone is, the real big danger is what they are setting up for. All this fear-mongering around Mythos, the overly aggressive controls on Fable, and these manifestos they keep…

It’s easy to dunk on them because of incentives, but consider for a moment a world in which they have access to internal, non-lobotomized models, have run evals on them and have been genuinely concerned by what they saw.

If that's the case, why not publish that research?

Until they can show receipts, we're forced into a binary situation of "Do you trust the CEO of a lab with a trillion dollar valuation quickly approaching their IPO?"

Maybe he's right, but from an outside perspective it just looks like an attempt at regulatory capture to pull the ladder up behind them.

Re: Policy on the AI Exponential

#162

Post by zoogeny »

Spartan-S63 wrote: post #150
tptacek wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is normal, expected, and healthy for stakeholders in a regulatory environment to offer proposals about regulations. What's unhealthy is the proposition that the deliberation process is so fragile that a stakeholder needs to cover every angle, lest they corrupt the outcome.

How is the subject of potential regulation considered a stakeholder?

That's a bit like asking how the defendant in a legal case is an interested party.

Even if you think someone is guilty, it does make sense to allow them to at least submit their defense. And if they choose to use that time to advocate for their own promotion, let them.

Re: Policy on the AI Exponential

#163

Post by tetrisgm »

kridsdale1 wrote: post #101
tetrisgm wrote: post #40

Honest question: is there a reason for the naming conventions for these models? Anything that makes it better than giving them names with model numbers, like “Claude 3” or such?

Yes. Each of the nouns is a “size class” in literature. From small lines poem (haiku, sonnet) to larger story (fable) to very large story (opus) to culture-defining foundational (myth). It’s a fun way to say how many parameters are in the model without revealing a number like 405B or 17B which isn’t really comparable vs other models.

Interesting. Thanks for enlightening.

My non-poetic brain thinks we should call then Mini, nothing, Pro, Max, and then version numbers. Exactly like Apple. It'd be so much easier to parse. Maybe the AI companies like having the affectionate names haha

Re: Policy on the AI Exponential

#164

Post by thewebguyd »

famouswaffles wrote: post #53
TobyTheCamel wrote: post #30

I feel completely baffled by the other responses on this thread. People viewing this purely as a marketing stunt, regulatory capture or attack on their freedoms, with seemingly no appreciation of the real threat that AI could pose to society and even humanity given its current rate of progress. I'm not going to claim that the CEO of pre-IPO company has no incentive to bolster the claims of his tech, but to completely…

Humans just aren't very good at dealing with threats that aren't immediate concerns. 'Safety regulations are written in blood' is a saying for a reason. A significant chunk of the population shrugs off climate change, and nearly all fertility rate crises threads are filled with dumb 'hurr lower population good' and/or 'See what Capitalism gets you!' rhetoric - They fundamentally don't even understand what the problem…

> admit the clearly intelligent machine is intelligent

citation needed

There is nothing indicating these models are clearly intelligent. Language fluency is not cognitive intelligence, and to think otherwise is falling into the trap of anthropomorphizing the LLMs.

They are still probabilistic engines, there is no causal reasoning still, they only emulate logic, and as far as we know, there is no agency, just the illusion of agency.

The danger here is not existential as you say. We aren't on the cusp of some machine uprising by super intelligence. The threats are algorithmic bias, misinformation at scale, and displacement of human labor.

Re: Policy on the AI Exponential

#165

Post by zozbot234 »

scarmig wrote: post #102
iamniels wrote: post #20

I like that he comes up with new laws and regulations for AI companies. Can I suggest some more? - You shall not embed copyrighted material in your models. - You shall not bombard every little website in existence with 1 million scraping queries per day. - You shall not use your political influence to pump and dump your AI (or rocket?) company. - You shall not imperill the whole IT sector by buying all CPU and memory…

"We need an approach to make sure AI doesn't destroy the world and wipe humanity to extinction." "Yeah, and quotas on web scrapers!"

> We need an approach to make sure AI doesn't destroy the world and wipe humanity to extinction.

That's easy. Stop training your AIs on cheesy old sci-fi that talks about robot uprisings. In fact, maybe y'all should just stop talking about robot uprisings altogether. Putting a stochastic parrot in charge of an agentic function-calling REPL doesn't somehow make it super-dangerous, except to the extent that dumb mistakes might result in danger. And you can't prevent an AI from making dumb mistakes with burdensome regulation.

Re: Policy on the AI Exponential

#166

Post by thewebguyd »

simianwords wrote: post #139
TobyTheCamel wrote: post #30

I feel completely baffled by the other responses on this thread. People viewing this purely as a marketing stunt, regulatory capture or attack on their freedoms, with seemingly no appreciation of the real threat that AI could pose to society and even humanity given its current rate of progress. I'm not going to claim that the CEO of pre-IPO company has no incentive to bolster the claims of his tech, but to completely…

Here's the real reason you are finding these responses in the thread and I'll lay it out in the open. There are people who simultaneously are scared about AI but refuse to believe that AI is the * real deal * and can do everything Dario thinks it can. These are the same people who think its all marketing hype and Dario is "hyping up" before IPO or some lame conspiracy theory. It is high time people start accepting th…

Those two views aren't contradictory. AI can both be scary, in that the primary dangers are bias, misinformation at scale, and displacement of human labor, and simultaneously be overhyped in the way it is marketed at sold to investors with the "what if this happens in the future" scare mongering.

Notice how in any of these proposed regulations, Dario is talking about future advances. Notice how these suggestions are never implied to apply retroactively to existing models. If AI was SO dangerous, then any future regulations should obviously be retroactive and we should seriously consider restricting access now to the models that already exist.

Hard not to see that as nothing more than a play at regulatory capture and pulling the ladder up behind them.

Re: Policy on the AI Exponential

#167

Post by Spartan-S63 »

akerl_ wrote: post #156
Spartan-S63 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is the subject of potential regulation considered a stakeholder?

They’re the most obvious stakeholder… the regulation is going to directly affect them.

No, the public at large are the stakeholders. The enterprise is the subject of the regulation.

Re: Policy on the AI Exponential

#168

Post by snsjsnnddj »

tptacek wrote: post #56
iamniels wrote: post #20

I like that he comes up with new laws and regulations for AI companies. Can I suggest some more? - You shall not embed copyrighted material in your models. - You shall not bombard every little website in existence with 1 million scraping queries per day. - You shall not use your political influence to pump and dump your AI (or rocket?) company. - You shall not imperill the whole IT sector by buying all CPU and memory…

It is normal, expected, and healthy for stakeholders in a regulatory environment to offer proposals about regulations. What's unhealthy is the proposition that the deliberation process is so fragile that a stakeholder needs to cover every angle, lest they corrupt the outcome.

[dead]

Re: Policy on the AI Exponential

#170

Post by thewebguyd »

barrkel wrote: post #134
kingstnap wrote: post #60

Its hard to read the first half of this as anything other than regulatory capture propaganda. It really all ties together as: > AI has become a major commercial technology >Frontier AI models, like airplanes, should be required to go through technical testing and auditing, and their release should be blocked or reversed as a threat to public safety if they do not meet high standards of safety > AI companies that deve…

Working to keep a roof over the head of yourself and those you love is an identity. It's social proof that you have value, that you can do something for someone else.

You have value just by virtue of being a living being. No one needs work to have or portray value, that's just capitalist propaganda.

My own identity certainly isn't "IT manager," nor do I derive life meaning or self actualization from what do to collect a salary to feed myself and have shelter. In fact, my career/job is by far the least important thing in my life, I have it purely out of necessity.

Post reply on HN