Earlier quoted context omitted.
>This is basically a conspiracy theory I think this is pretty uncharitable, especially when I've provided you with a dataset you can evaluate yourself and an argument you can review for logical inconsistency. I have worked quite hard to locate data that supports your thesis, I can't find it. I've at least gone to the effort of documenting that search. Before you throw around such strong convictions, I suggest you act…
Respectfully, your link is not very convincing. But what’s interesting is that you are commenting on a post where Dario is suggesting that LLMs are so extremely powerful that they can take over, help synthesise bioweapons, help in warfare, help in drug discovery — the whole post here is to try and regulate this. If you believe AI can’t even create positive value let alone discover new things then your problem is some…
I'd love to understand why. This would be valuable feedback for me as I try to make my writing and exposition better. Also, if you have other data, that also would be valuable for me to know.
>if you believe what you believe, you should also acknowledge that AI doesn’t need regulations in the context Dario is proposing since obviously AI can’t do anything he predicts. Do you agree?
I think you misunderstand my beliefs. On net I think how we're using LLMs destroys value. That doesn't mean no one ever gets value from LLM use.
My particular point about trillion dollars is - the main place Anthropic, OpenAI, and - hilariously - SpaceX think they will drive value creation is in enterprise applications. In that domain I think the evidence is very convincingly negative. I'm certainly not the only person who thinks this. It's pretty well accepted in economics right now that there is no observed organizational level productivity improvement. Lines break down on whether it will show up eventually or whether we will wait forever.
My belief about LLM value is that it's most useful for individuals and small teams. Places where coordination and trust are easily established and feedback loops to value creation are tight. They are "short range" as it were.
Their value starts to erode as soon as a user becomes disconnected from the point of direct value creation. Which is pretty much everyone who works inside of a large organization. It becomes negative at pretty small scale, IMO. I do think there are patterns of use that could drive value at these scales. I talk about that in my post.
On Bioweapons in particular, I could see small teams of people working to build something very dangerous. Having spent my formative academic years in a biochemistry and microbiology lab though, I do think the danger is overstated. Papers are not know-how or equipment. There's a lot of tacit knowledge that can't get written down that is super hard to acquire.
But, I'd be happy for us to regulate AI for dangerous applications.
My question would be - why would Anthropic build something they so clearly think is dangerous? If they were really building something deserving of the valuation they have, why build applications like this?
To my eyes - it's super weird that a company would build something they think is dangerous and turn around and beg the governments of the world to stop them. That's really strange behavior from my perspective.