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

171–180 of 194 posts

Re: Dario, Please

#171

Post by mitthrowaway2 »

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.

Re: Dario, Please

#172

Post by myaccountonhn »

I think Anthropic just have no legitimacy to being the stewards of AI. They don't have a good track record. They are a private company without any governence that puts my interests into the equation. I am not US-based, thus I can't democratically influence them. Why should I want some batshit crazy, US-based technocrats deciding what I can and can't do with AI?

Re: Dario, Please

#173

Post by vishnugupta »

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…

> People generally follow them because they expect to be caught and punished.

Laws are the last line of defense. People don’t do bad things primarily because their human nature and moral compass stops them from doing so.

Re: Dario, Please

#174

Post by BLKNSLVR »

zmmmmm wrote: post #81

It would all be more convincing if the incidents so far didn't seem to be facilitated by an outrageous level of negligence. We had OpenAI "accidentally" run an entire swarm of 10,000 agents apparently for weeks, on a security related task, seemingly totally unsupervised, hacking all over the internet - all the conversations were completely visible, anybody who looked would have seen it. But they didn't. So before we…

Sounds like advertising platforms. Spraying malware and links to scam sites all over the place.

"They" don't care about the end-people. "They" care about maximising their profit thing, in a vacuum.

Re: Dario, Please

#175

Post by BLKNSLVR »

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.

"I'm not going to let someone else take the credit for ending human civilisation!"

Re: Dario, Please

#176

Post by jack_pp »

DLA wrote: post #78
dmoose wrote: post #20

If we can get everyone to slow down we can hemorrhage less money going into our ipo.

This! $1.6+ TRILLION in infra spending from the big frontier labs. The earnings needed to drive a reasonable ROI to recoup that investment is simply not going to happen in a time frame where the numbers make sense. The other insanity in all this the smartest computer scientists in the world are asking Congress to regulate them. Come. On. Really? Do we remember “The internet is not a truck, it’s a series of tubes…” Wh…

In a prisoner's dilemma the players can't rely on one another to self-regulate. This is why Mafias kill snitches, so when their members are in a prisoner's dilemma they can rely on the knowledge that if themselves or the other party snitches they have more to lose than gain.

The problem is that there can not be any outside party to regulate this on a global scale

Re: Dario, Please

#177

Post by zahlman »

> Now to cause hundreds of billions of dollars in losses. I’d say the straightforward way is just do what the ransomware gangs do. Voila. Yeah, not in 6 months, not in 12 months. Never.

I think this fails to account properly for how much financial damage it would do simply just having the entire Internet be effectively unusable for an extended period.

Re: Dario, Please

#178

Post by zahlman »

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…

> 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.

Because there are many important values of "something" where such punishment acts as a deterrent to other would-be criminals; and because society is more stable when people see justice done and that mollifies hoi polloi after the damage occurs.

But many AI doom scenarios don't fit that paradigm. The first time "something" happens (at least if you buy the argument) would be bad enough for legal punishment not to matter.

Re: Dario, Please

#179

Post by zahlman »

includenotfound wrote: post #160
zmmmmm wrote: post #81

It would all be more convincing if the incidents so far didn't seem to be facilitated by an outrageous level of negligence. We had OpenAI "accidentally" run an entire swarm of 10,000 agents apparently for weeks, on a security related task, seemingly totally unsupervised, hacking all over the internet - all the conversations were completely visible, anybody who looked would have seen it. But they didn't. So before we…

The "sandbox" they used was apparently made of thin paper exposed under a day of heavy rain, too. You'd think, if they truly believed the model is so dangerous, they'd run it in a VM without a network adapter.

I brought this up to someone else and was told that airgapping is apparently much more expensive than I'd naively think.

I still think this is a sign that they are not taking their own rhetoric seriously.

Re: Dario, Please

#180

Post by YetAnotherNick »

mococa wrote: post #13
ebcode wrote: post #12

While I have my reservations about Amodei and his company, I'm nevertheless a happy user of their software. And I'm in agreement with him (and Sanders) that we should all. slow. down. To my mind, the last great arms race between nation states was a misdirected love triangle between USA, Russia, and The Bomb, and look at all the damage that did. Since AI is the new arms race between USA and China, slowing down may jus…

China will not slow down.

There is a way they could. In mind only thing that will slow down the frontier is government taking control of the revenue.

So my proposal is AI companies decide which labs have come close to frontier and decide to slow it. Government decide to stop progress in that and they divide the revenue from all labs(for say 10 years), without any matter of where it is coming from. Any lab which reaches close to frontier gets a chunk in the pie. This will encourage labs to come close to the frontier but not dangerously close.

Post reply on HN