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

561–570 of 572 posts

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#561

Post by nshshbr »

eloisant wrote: post #146
traceroute66 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The thing that will work is actually curing cancer. This is honestly hilarious. Dario must think people are stupid. First, cancer research charities are some of the most well funded on this planet. They all obtain donations on the basis of "together, we will cure cancer" messaging. They all fund the best science they can. Second, the human body is a complicated thing. You can feed your fancy LLM as many textbooks a…

Besides cancer isn't really "a disease" but rather "a family of diseases" that can vary a lot. Even breast cancer can be one of many different cancers. It's like saying "we'll cure infectious diseases"

I always think the most salient comparison would be to say, "We will solve all computer bugs and eliminate all computer viruses and security vulnerabilities." No one ever even thinks to promise this, I think because it is obvious that even a superintelligent computer will never be totally free of errors or invulnerable to attack.

Or, even better, they never even respond to surging memory costs by saying, "Don't worry, our brilliant AI will figure out how to produce cheaper memory." Because they know it won't.

I genuinely don't know how to interpret the bizarre clichés these people think in. Cure cancer. Make death optional! I can't tell if they're crazy, stupid, or liars.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#562

Post by nshshbr »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #513
traceroute66 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The thing that will work is actually curing cancer. This is honestly hilarious. Dario must think people are stupid. First, cancer research charities are some of the most well funded on this planet. They all obtain donations on the basis of "together, we will cure cancer" messaging. They all fund the best science they can. Second, the human body is a complicated thing. You can feed your fancy LLM as many textbooks a…

>> The thing that will work is actually curing cancer. > This is honestly hilarious. Dario must think people are stupid. I mean, if Claude actually cures cancer, I do think he'll be right. The only problem is that you need to actually cure cancer.

You can't sell eternal life in an increasingly miserable world. There is no point curing cancer, if it were even possible, if all of your other activities function to increase the rate of suicide. If these people succeed in robbing the world of every last moment of privacy, every last spark of creativity, and all possibility of genuine human connection, cancer will be the least of your problems.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#563

Post by nshshbr »

user43928 wrote: post #324
smoe wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the problem is that people don't believe AI can be beneficial. The problem is the perception that AI will affect people's lives more negatively than positively, while a few get even more obscenely rich and powerful. If you don't tackle the societal level problems, nobody will care about research breakthroughs.

I don't see a lot of societal level problems other than the labor market, for which both Anthropic and OpenAI create research, monitoring, and policy advice. I don't think anyone will care about the largely made up issues about electricity prices or water use in case AI literally cures cancer.

How do you not see other societal level problems. This technology destroys human communication. It undermines the thing the internet came into existence for, and turns it into a liability. It grants intelligent analysis to a sprawling surveillance network. It makes people mentally ill. It destroys confidence and hope in technological progress. Who even cares about cancer at that point? I would rather die of cancer than live in a fake, ugly, artless world full of fake, stupid, and crazy people under constant surveillance by an AI.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#564

Post by nshshbr »

mm263 wrote: post #390
kilpikaarna wrote: post #32

> I think it is fundamentally a crisis of trust. I think that ordinary people don’t trust companies, governments, or the tech industry and always suspect that we are cooking up some new way to screw them over. [...] > I don’t think that a glitzy marketing campaign with a positive spin (which some have advocated that Anthropic do) is the way to win back that trust — at this point, saying that AI will cure cancer is mo…

> Turns out "winning back trust" doesn't have anything to do with any actual concerns people may have re: employment, electricity prices, stock market bubble, intellectual property, scams, cybersecurity, environmental issues etc No snark here from my side, just curious about your vision - which concrete actions by Anthropic could improve trust for the concerns you listed?

You're not asking me, but I want to say that there is nothing Anthropic or any other AI company can do to make me trust them other than to dissolve and give up their ambitions and do something else. Then maybe, after seeing genuine contrition and humility I would trust them to do something else. But likely not. After all they've done, they should accept that a permanent loss of trust is a reasonable consequence. They should lose their influence, position, and money. They should live the rest of their lives as ordinary people, unable to ever again cause mass harm to others, and they should be grateful to be forgiven, and allowed such a humble opportunity.

My answer to their proposal for what our society should look like, and what kind of technologies we should use is "no". It's not a trust issue, as in I would not accept the proposal from anyone, even if I did otherwise trust them. And if someone I trusted insistently proposed this, I would stop trusting them.

In any case, they don't accept refusal, but try this grotesque and condescending maneuver about "trust", as if I and many others were not really just saying "no".

No one who refuses to take "no" for an answer can ever deserve trust. If you are committed to convincing me to go along with your desires, and have no intent of accepting my refusal, you will never deserve trust, and I will never trust you.

These companies may have the power to do what they want anyway. But they will never have a clear conscience, or trust and support from me or anyone like me.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#565

Post by mm263 »

kilpikaarna wrote: post #479
mm263 wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Turns out "winning back trust" doesn't have anything to do with any actual concerns people may have re: employment, electricity prices, stock market bubble, intellectual property, scams, cybersecurity, environmental issues etc No snark here from my side, just curious about your vision - which concrete actions by Anthropic could improve trust for the concerns you listed?

Well, is ”not actively make things worse in the short term?” too ambitious a goal? Considering the vast amount of money, world-class talent and political and industry vonnections Anthropic has access to, it feels a bit unfair to ask me to solve this for them.

I’m not asking you to solve it. Just curious what are the solutions that Anthropic can do right now from your perspective. The concerns you have are pretty well-defined, so the solutions for them must also flow naturally, I think?

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#566

Post by mm263 »

nshshbr wrote: post #564
mm263 wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Turns out "winning back trust" doesn't have anything to do with any actual concerns people may have re: employment, electricity prices, stock market bubble, intellectual property, scams, cybersecurity, environmental issues etc No snark here from my side, just curious about your vision - which concrete actions by Anthropic could improve trust for the concerns you listed?

You're not asking me, but I want to say that there is nothing Anthropic or any other AI company can do to make me trust them other than to dissolve and give up their ambitions and do something else. Then maybe, after seeing genuine contrition and humility I would trust them to do something else. But likely not. After all they've done, they should accept that a permanent loss of trust is a reasonable consequence. They…

You are following the logic to its natural conclusion and I find it infinitely better for the discourse when it’s spelled out like this vs vaguely pointing to a set of other concerns without concrete proposals!

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#567

Post by kanzure »

fwip wrote: post #503
jacquesm wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What could possibly go wrong...

Honestly, the most likely thing is lots and lots of dead fetuses due to developmental abnormalities. I'd be surprised if it ever got to the point of resulting in a dead infant.

Quality control and testing is absolutely essential, yeah. It's hard work and the plan shouldn't be misconstrued as "rewrite the whole genome of an embryo today and go for the first birth immediately" because that would be stupid when we know there is other work to be done. It shouldn't surprise ANYONE that making significant progress against cancer, aging, or other issues, would take lots of work and not doing the immediate obvious broken thing.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#568

Post by rangestransform »

pjc50 wrote: post #373
cucumber3732842 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>AI makes a lot of traditional social processes stop working properly. Which is mostly a good thing because most of those processes were cooked up to be exclusionary but with plausible deniability God forbid some upstart get a big contract they "shouldn't" have gotten because AI lets them create a submission that's on par with a big guys. God forbid Joe Schmo be able to prepare the paperwork and dot his I's and cross…

> The ability to suffer one's way through bureaucratic process without having to suffer through paying the lawyers and accountants and engineers and whatnot to get you through that process is a huge part of the value proposition of AI These are adversarial processes. You might get a win in the short term, but everyone else is playing the same game with access to the same tools, and developing a game-breaking strategy…

If ai helping normal people use rich people loopholes cause a government system to collapse, the system deserved to collapse

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#569

Post by CamperBob2 »

palmotea wrote: post #533
CamperBob2 wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Donald Trump still maintains a 39% approval rating among the electorate. It turns out that a lot of people are indeed quite stupid.

> Donald Trump still maintains a 39% approval rating among the electorate. It turns out that a lot of people are indeed quite stupid. No. It's partisanship and polarization, which has little to do with intelligence. But there's one thing that I know is stupid: assuming the reason opposite pole doesn't do what you think they should is because they're full of stupids.

No, it has everything to do with intelligence. What you are saying is correct in the context of traditional liberal/conservative axes of debate, but that's no longer the basis for discussion.

Liberal or conservative, left or right, authoritarian or libertarian, it doesn't matter: if you (still) think Trump is the right man for the job, then you are either a criminal or other subversive agent, a glassy-eyed cultist, or stupid.

Failure to call out stupidity when we see it is no virtue, to paraphrase Goldwater. It is costing us everything we built as a society over the last 250 years.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#570

Post by DangitBobby »

webdood90 wrote: post #381
DangitBobby wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lol. If he included everything you'd claim he needs to sound honest you'd criticize him for being long winded instead.

What in the world could possibly compel you to shill for this man?

Being tired of contrarian bickering on literally every fucking comment section of this god forsaken website
Post reply on HN