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

201–210 of 280 posts

Re: Policy on the AI Exponential

#201

Post by hollerith »

snaking0776 wrote: post #153
aspenmartin wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's nice that people are genuinely curious about this. - All of your observations are absolutely dead on - Yet, we have very very very robust scaling laws that as Dario points out we've had and validated for over a decade. This extends to downstream measures like METR time horizon and compsosite benchmarks like the epoch capability index. - If you look at where you're at now, which is again dead on, you're looking a…

That’s interesting. I commented something about this elsewhere but to me part of the exponential argument that loses me though is that it can often seem like a way to distract from issues that already exist which we should be working to fix. Things like autonomous weapons or mass surveillance are already here and rather terrifying and I would hope that we would dedicate our time to fixing those rather than having ind…

>why is all I hear these industry leaders talking about is the threat of extinction? . . . I would love to see a leading lab release research on the health effects of subaudible sound in datacenters

It is straightforward for industry leaders to avoid living near data centers, but there's no way for them to insulate themselves from the extinction threat -- no way short of somehow eliminating the danger for everybody, which seems quite hard to do. Since industry leaders are as self-centered as everyone else, the extinction threat is what they think about.

Also, you describe the extinction threat as "further out". A lot of us think there is already some small amount of AI extinction risk being incurred every day. I.e., we think the period of danger has already begun.

Re: Policy on the AI Exponential

#202

Post by tptacek »

pseudalopex wrote: post #200
tptacek wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that is a shorter way of saying what I just said.

Amodei did not fail to anticipate and capture all objections. He dishonestly avoided well known objections. This was what you meant?

No, it is not his job to state all the objections you might have to his proposal! That's your job.

Re: Policy on the AI Exponential

#203

Post by tptacek »

shimman wrote: post #197
sdenton4 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Stakeholder" literally means someone with a stake in the outcome, which is to say, those who will be affected by the decision. That can include a whole range of people+entities, including citizens (as a group) and the companies to be regulated.

[flagged]

Several people on this thread have aliased the terms "stakeholder" and "protagonist".

Re: Policy on the AI Exponential

#204

Post by [deleted] »

BrenBarn wrote: post #92

This was slightly more thoughtful than I feared it would be. However, what I still do not see in any posts from any of these AI pushers is any genuine consideration of the possibility that the best thing might be for them to do less of what they are currently doing. Not to do it differently. Not to mitigate it. Not to do something else in addition. But to actually reduce their current activities.

[deleted]

Re: Policy on the AI Exponential

#205

Post by w10-1 »

Does it really help to say it's exponential?

People are not in charge, and have not been for some time.

Corporations and governments select their leaders and policies to advance their interests. People fit the work, not vice-versa. Only external competition or internal capabilities limit them (i.e., predation or resources).

External resources have been optimized as profit and exported costs; now that AI replaces the pesky need to source elites, capabilities will expand, which will result in more competition.

Law is not a lot more than settled expectations, and increasing capabilities changes expectations much more than even market disruption and disinformation, so I wouldn't expect law to save us.

As far as I can see, only competition will temper things, and only if AI companies are seen as responsible for their customers' applications - which I doubt. I say this in hope of being proven wrong.

Re: Policy on the AI Exponential

#206

Post by opsnooperfax »

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…

He has to pull up the ladder before people realize doubling cost for a 5% gain is bonkers. The cat is out of the bag. They can try to sabotage, but we’ve already come to far

Re: Policy on the AI Exponential

#207

Post by pseudalopex »

tptacek wrote: post #202
pseudalopex wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amodei did not fail to anticipate and capture all objections. He dishonestly avoided well known objections. This was what you meant?

No, it is not his job to state all the objections you might have to his proposal! That's your job.

> all the objections you might have

My comment before corrected this straw man clearly.

Re: Policy on the AI Exponential

#208

Post by poslathian »

slyzmud wrote: post #182
thepasch wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Working to keep a roof over the head of yourself and those you love is a necessity . It can become an identity if you enjoy what you do, sure, but that is not a given for, I'd say, a big majority of the workforce, globally.

I agree with you, 99% of the people work just to pay bills, but that doesn't make the other part false. I'm a software engineer and love thinking about problems methodically. Every time I hear a someone saying that programmers are no longer required (even if I don't agree with that) if feels really bad, it's equivalent to saying that what I do best in life has no value anymore. To put it on other words: I really like…

I’m lucky to have more than my share of really exceptional programmers to hang out with and they all say the same thing: “I haven’t been writing code for months and don’t expect to again”

This is a way different sentiment than “programmers aren’t needed anymore” - I’m just seeing ambition, motivation, and fun go up in lockstep.

I first heard this in November and slowly one by one it’s everyone whose opinion I respect.

FWIW the other popular topic is how abysmally stupid and limited these amazing tools continue to be, despite also being magic.

Oh and that none of us have gotten token maxxing to succeed, despite lots of trying.

Re: Policy on the AI Exponential

#209

Post by snaking0776 »

hollerith wrote: post #201
snaking0776 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s interesting. I commented something about this elsewhere but to me part of the exponential argument that loses me though is that it can often seem like a way to distract from issues that already exist which we should be working to fix. Things like autonomous weapons or mass surveillance are already here and rather terrifying and I would hope that we would dedicate our time to fixing those rather than having ind…

>why is all I hear these industry leaders talking about is the threat of extinction? . . . I would love to see a leading lab release research on the health effects of subaudible sound in datacenters It is straightforward for industry leaders to avoid living near data centers, but there's no way for them to insulate themselves from the extinction threat -- no way short of somehow eliminating the danger for everybody,…

I see. I wonder how this works out in terms of risk/reward. I suppose if you take extinction as -infinite cost than it would be the only issue worth thinking about. Where I think this line of thinking gets challenging is when you need to take in terms of a counter factual. A lot of these were already risks prior to AI (bioweapons, nukes, etc) so what’s the marginal increase in probability as a result of AI I guess is the question which matters. I could get more around this way of framing it than saying that AI itself is the problem. It’s just the being more capable as a species increases risks. I think a lot of these pushback comes from the fact that it’s often the CEO who stands to gain huge by saying his tool is going to end the world so we need public buyin to supporting it. If instead it was just framed as “general technological advancement” is dangerous but potentially worthwhile I think more would be on board.

Re: Policy on the AI Exponential

#210

Post by CamperBob2 »

david_shaw wrote: post #107

> A nation that possesses powerful AI facing one without it—or even facing one that is behind in AI by 3 years—could be the equivalent of an army of World War II Marines facing an army of medieval swordsmen. This is a somewhat ironic take from someone who very publicly feuded with the US government about whether their AI could be used for waging war.

His entire "I Have No Moat And I Must Scream" essay rests on the assumption that our government will remain aligned with both his own company's interests and those of our democratic society as a whole... as if our government is even starting out from such a position. After his recent head-butting defeat by Hegseth's Department of War (sic), it's just downright surreal to read passages like this:

    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. 
    I am grateful to see the Trump administration’s 
    Executive Order move incrementally towards a 
    greater role for government in AI, though 
    Anthropic’s proposal recommends even further action.
Either he's playing us all for fools, or he's playing himself. I suppose both could be true.
Post reply on HN