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

On AI regulation and messaging

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

521–530 of 573 posts

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#521

Post by urams »

postboxaerobics wrote: post #520
urams wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please explain an EA position that could possibly suggest that they would deprioritize human lives in order to make AGI more comfortable when, for example, the largest EA philanthropy organization, Coefficient Giving, formerly Open Philanthropy, has given millions to Yudkowksy's MIRI which is currently among the most anti-AGI organizations on the planet? Can you find any explicitly EA organization that is at all alig…

Open Philantrophy was founded by Holden Karnofsky who was Dario Armodei's roommate and is married to his sister Daniela Armodei. He now works for Anthropic, a company that is explicitly building AGI.

Thanks for making an account to post this.

Working to build AI at the company that is most publicly discussing the risks posed by AI to humanity and most advocating for guardrails (while getting an immense amount of flack for implementing them independently) doesn't seem to support anything about what you, or rather the other person said, about sacrificing humanity for anything AI related.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#522

Post by xscott »

shimman wrote: post #451
xscott wrote: post #101

Any argument about regulation in the US which doesn't mention that China and other countries aren't bound by that regulation should be heavily questioned. Exactly who are you stopping from doing what you don't like?!? Law abiding US citizens won't be able to run them, but you didn't solve anything other than making sure US citizens pay Sam or Dario.

As a US citizen I do not care about regulating China, they can figure out themselves. Just as they figured out how to imprison their corrupt CEOs, I'm confident they won't let corporations destroy their society like the US. I rather let citizens of my country exercise our own authority and agency when deciding what is necessary for good societal outcomes (LLMs aren't necessary).

I think you might misunderstand. The regulation isn't about what OpenAI and Anthropic can do. It's about what you, a citizen, can do.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#524

Post by simoncion »

jacquesm wrote: post #466
simoncion wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...there’s nothing about being into tech that’s in opposition to class consciousness. I agree about the ethos and ethics of early hackers. But, I note that -by volume- most of the folks who do programming and nearly all of the people who are software-industry managers [0] are not hackers. [0] I'm including managers at all levels, including the executive levels.

And in spite of the name, most the people on Hacker News.

Yep.

Though, given that this was originally a message board and hangout for folks deeply involved with YCombinator, and that prior to LLM Mania, the most commonly posted stuff was either "Techie 'lifestyle' blogging" or "Vapid thinkpieces", it's not surprising.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#525

Post by postboxaerobics »

urams wrote: post #521
postboxaerobics wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Open Philantrophy was founded by Holden Karnofsky who was Dario Armodei's roommate and is married to his sister Daniela Armodei. He now works for Anthropic, a company that is explicitly building AGI.

Thanks for making an account to post this. Working to build AI at the company that is most publicly discussing the risks posed by AI to humanity and most advocating for guardrails (while getting an immense amount of flack for implementing them independently) doesn't seem to support anything about what you, or rather the other person said, about sacrificing humanity for anything AI related.

I don't really agree with the other commenter, I don't think EAs are intentionally sacrificing humanity for AI, but the fact it's unintentional doesn't really change the fact this is what they are doing.

Anthropic are explicitly building ASI, using recursive self improvement, with no knowledge of how to control it. They spend only a minimal fraction of their funds on safety work, none of which relates to controlling ASI.

I am open to being wrong about Anthropic, but it will be hard to convince me that a company developing ASI is prioritising safety. Do you really believe what they are doing is safe?

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#526

Post by shimman »

xscott wrote: post #522
shimman wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a US citizen I do not care about regulating China, they can figure out themselves. Just as they figured out how to imprison their corrupt CEOs, I'm confident they won't let corporations destroy their society like the US. I rather let citizens of my country exercise our own authority and agency when deciding what is necessary for good societal outcomes (LLMs aren't necessary).

I think you might misunderstand. The regulation isn't about what OpenAI and Anthropic can do. It's about what you, a citizen, can do.

I'm lobbying the government by helping elect politicians into Congress that want to impose a national moratorium on new DCs and helping organize groups across the US on how to properly resist these things.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#527

Post by jacquesm »

shimman wrote: post #526
xscott wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you might misunderstand. The regulation isn't about what OpenAI and Anthropic can do. It's about what you, a citizen, can do.

I'm lobbying the government by helping elect politicians into Congress that want to impose a national moratorium on new DCs and helping organize groups across the US on how to properly resist these things.

I hope you have extremely deep pockets.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#528

Post by xscott »

shimman wrote: post #526
xscott wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you might misunderstand. The regulation isn't about what OpenAI and Anthropic can do. It's about what you, a citizen, can do.

I'm lobbying the government by helping elect politicians into Congress that want to impose a national moratorium on new DCs and helping organize groups across the US on how to properly resist these things.

All good, but that seems unrelated to what I said, and I'm not sure why you replied to me.

Consider this though: Regulating AI models in the US benefits the data centers, not individuals. That's where regulated models run. Regulated models creates demand for data centers.

Dario wants regulation so he can continue to sell access to his data centers.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#529

Post by urams »

postboxaerobics wrote: post #525
urams wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for making an account to post this. Working to build AI at the company that is most publicly discussing the risks posed by AI to humanity and most advocating for guardrails (while getting an immense amount of flack for implementing them independently) doesn't seem to support anything about what you, or rather the other person said, about sacrificing humanity for anything AI related.

I don't really agree with the other commenter, I don't think EAs are intentionally sacrificing humanity for AI, but the fact it's unintentional doesn't really change the fact this is what they are doing. Anthropic are explicitly building ASI, using recursive self improvement, with no knowledge of how to control it. They spend only a minimal fraction of their funds on safety work, none of which relates to controlling…

I truly don't see any major problem with what they're doing. For any current significant risk (security, bio risks), their models are notoriously useless.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#530

Post by tmp10423288442 »

xienze wrote: post #444
tmp10423288442 wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe yes, maybe no. Measles cases have been on a long-term upward trend in the US since the bottom around 2000: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/number-of-measles-cases?t... In Canada, measles cases suddenly exploded in 2025 as well, and they don't have RFK Jr. there: https://health-infobase.canada.ca/measles-rubella/ The policies around measles vaccines have shifted a little since RFK became HHS Secretary, but no…

The elephant in the room that a lot of people don't want to talk about is mass migration from countries where measles is still a major thing... surely that contributes a bit.

I think the more honest people in the space acknowledge that’s at least one of, if not the major reason. The antivax movement contributes as well of course
Post reply on HN