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

Did Anthropic ask for this?

verysane.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 176 posts

Re: Did Anthropic ask for this?

#51

Post by jdw64 »

chillfox wrote: post #45
jdw64 wrote: post #24

To speak my mind without filtering, Amodei looks pretty terrible in this situation. They've positioned their company as 'We're the serious AI company that understands safety, while others underestimate the risks.' That strategy itself is understandable. They're not like OpenAI, which carved out the pioneer position in LLMs, nor do they have a trustworthy brand like Google (Gemini isn't trustworthy, but still). So bra…

Nobody who works at Anthropic is a good person. Just look at any interview with Amodei, he gets super excited/happy every time he gets to talk about his tech making people unemployed. The guy loves firing people not at his company. Deliberately trying to cause mass poverty and starvation by firing as many people as possible and being excited about it is cartoon villain stuff. Anyone who works at Anthropic is basicall…

But we must not forget that the reason they are admired is that our society has rewarded people like that. Our society is fascinated by people like Amodei precisely because, despite being contradictory, we have rewarded those who make money and pull up the ladder behind them.

Also, even if a company is an evil organization, I think people can still serve that evil to make a living. Evil is easy; good is difficult. Most people, rather than being good but poor, would rather be evil but wealthy.

This is the image of an entrepreneur that our capitalist society has wanted all along, so he is simply positioning himself accordingly.

Re: Did Anthropic ask for this?

#52

Post by s3p »

ivraatiems wrote: post #11

Maybe this will be simpler for Anthropic to understand if they take their own high-minded philosophical nonsense and ego out of it and consider it the way a neutral party would. Suppose a company calls themselves The Doomsday Device Company. They make and sell excellent-quality doomsday devices. They regularly go online to proclaim that their doomsday devices are the best and most powerful, and also that doomsday dev…

Shame on a company for sticking to their values, I guess.

The dichotomy between Anthropic and OpenAI's treatment honestly couldn't be more obvious. OpenAI has also asked for increased AI regulation, and they've also released GPT 5.5 Cyber which is claimed to have the same vulnerability-finding abilities as Mythos. OpenAI received no such notices like Anthropic. OpenAI also received a government contract, while Anthropic was banned from DoD use.

Regardless of your thoughts about Dario or his company, this treatment is obviously not based in any rational principle, and pretending it is would be stupid.

It's only a matter of months before the open source models achieve this same capability. What is the US government going to do then? Ban all people in the world from accessing the Chinese models? If you think about these arguments for more than five minutes they really do fall flat.

Re: Did Anthropic ask for this?

#54

Post by knollimar »

ivraatiems wrote: post #11

Maybe this will be simpler for Anthropic to understand if they take their own high-minded philosophical nonsense and ego out of it and consider it the way a neutral party would. Suppose a company calls themselves The Doomsday Device Company. They make and sell excellent-quality doomsday devices. They regularly go online to proclaim that their doomsday devices are the best and most powerful, and also that doomsday dev…

>(They don't, but they claim they do.)

I hate to shill them, but wasn't mythos/Fable SOTA?

Your main point still stands without this aside

Re: Did Anthropic ask for this?

#55

Post by pclowes »

I wonder if you can just use fable/mythos to basically re-create core Anthropic research. They seem to be very touchy about using their models for LLM R&D given the guard rails they built into the product.

None of the large language model providers have a very defensible product moat yet and if the models themselves can reveal research fundamentals their position would become extremely precarious.

It would be very tempting to hide behind a national security excuse to try and preserve the research moat.

Re: Did Anthropic ask for this?

#56

Post by Davidzheng »

ivraatiems wrote: post #26
ianm218 wrote: post #15

What I feel like is missing in the common discourse here is that Anthropic genuinely believes that AI poses an existential risk for humanity either in terms of literal survival or extreme mass surveillance, human disempowerment etc. So if you take these risks seriously, which the median commentor on HN obviously doesn't, what is the right thing to do? I.e. OpenAI just went full evil corpo mode and went all in on the…

> So if you take these risks seriously, which the median commentor on HN obviously doesn't, what is the right thing to do? Easy. You oppose it. You dedicate all your resources to stopping not just OpenAI, but anybody trying to make these technologies. With all those billions of dollars, you could get a lot done. Anthropic doesn't do this, which exposes the fundamental hypocrisy in their stated philosophies.

If they only opposed it they wouldn't have had these billions of dollars? Also I think they genuinely believe they cannot stop it because the Chinese companies are close behind (I also believe it's impossible to stop b/c of strong economic pressures selecting for those who will advance this tech and there are many who can)

Re: Did Anthropic ask for this?

#57

Post by s3p »

Have been adding a few too many comments here but I have to add this one.

Most of the people complaining about Anthropic's behavior, while simultaneously avoiding the argument at heart about whether AI regulation is good, remind me of the "we should improve society" meme:

https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/mister-gotcha-...

Re: Did Anthropic ask for this?

#58

Post by airstrike »

ianm218 wrote: post #15

What I feel like is missing in the common discourse here is that Anthropic genuinely believes that AI poses an existential risk for humanity either in terms of literal survival or extreme mass surveillance, human disempowerment etc. So if you take these risks seriously, which the median commentor on HN obviously doesn't, what is the right thing to do? I.e. OpenAI just went full evil corpo mode and went all in on the…

We do not know for a fact what they genuinely believe, and many of us have seen companies act in opposition to their stated goals so the burden of proof is on them.

It's healthy to suspect ulterior motives from them.

Re: Did Anthropic ask for this?

#59

Post by andai »

ivraatiems wrote: post #11

Maybe this will be simpler for Anthropic to understand if they take their own high-minded philosophical nonsense and ego out of it and consider it the way a neutral party would. Suppose a company calls themselves The Doomsday Device Company. They make and sell excellent-quality doomsday devices. They regularly go online to proclaim that their doomsday devices are the best and most powerful, and also that doomsday dev…

Okay, but hasn't OpenAI been doing the same thing for years? They seem to be on slightly better terms though...

Re: Did Anthropic ask for this?

#60

Post by s3p »

ivraatiems wrote: post #26
ianm218 wrote: post #15

What I feel like is missing in the common discourse here is that Anthropic genuinely believes that AI poses an existential risk for humanity either in terms of literal survival or extreme mass surveillance, human disempowerment etc. So if you take these risks seriously, which the median commentor on HN obviously doesn't, what is the right thing to do? I.e. OpenAI just went full evil corpo mode and went all in on the…

> So if you take these risks seriously, which the median commentor on HN obviously doesn't, what is the right thing to do? Easy. You oppose it. You dedicate all your resources to stopping not just OpenAI, but anybody trying to make these technologies. With all those billions of dollars, you could get a lot done. Anthropic doesn't do this, which exposes the fundamental hypocrisy in their stated philosophies.

Again, how would they do that?

Are they not doing what they should do, which is call for increased regulation? Last I checked, they were not able to create and enact laws.

Post reply on HN