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

The Doom Justifies the Valuation

geohot.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 161 posts

Re: The Doom Justifies the Valuation

#91

Post by shard972 »

ekelsen wrote: post #88
bryan0 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. There are 2 groups of people: 1. Those, like OP, that believe AI danger and disruption is all hype to boost valuations. 2. Those, like myself, that believe AI danger and disruption is very real and presents dilemmas (but also opportunities) for society, so we must tread carefully. The first position is not logically consistent with reality. The danger is real: we have already seen hints about how this will i…

I don't think the first position is steel manned by assuming those holding it actually believe there are no potential problems or ways to use the technology badly. But that belief does not imply the doom rhetoric is necessary or the best way to approach those issues.

[dead]

Re: The Doom Justifies the Valuation

#92

Post by shard972 »

chongli wrote: post #76
ajyoon wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any evidence of this? It seems like a thing people say all the time, but completely unsubstantiated.

What else is there? The product as delivered today doesn't come anywhere near a justification for these valuations. All of it is built on an expectation of future capabilities, and that's where the Dario-penned doom papers come in.

[dead]

Re: The Doom Justifies the Valuation

#93

Post by mrandish »

bryan0 wrote: post #66
ajyoon wrote: post #18

I have never understood this line of thinking. Why would a company warn that their technology is dangerous if it wasn't? Looking at the ongoing Mythos export control issue, it's obviously not good for profits. If you assume AGI is possible, you must agree that it would be at the very least profoundly destabilizing. The companies are built around this assumption.

I agree. There are 2 groups of people: 1. Those, like OP, that believe AI danger and disruption is all hype to boost valuations. 2. Those, like myself, that believe AI danger and disruption is very real and presents dilemmas (but also opportunities) for society, so we must tread carefully. The first position is not logically consistent with reality. The danger is real: we have already seen hints about how this will i…

> in fact it does the opposite because of the need for government regulation.

For frontier leaders, regulation is a competitive moat. At trillion dollar scale, compliance teams, legal and lobbyists are a tiny fraction of opex. For emerging startups, early regulation of a new market is a substantial barrier to entry.

That said, I think Anthropic blundered into their current Fable mess unintentionally by underestimating just how much they pissed off the current administration by refusing to let the DoD use Ant's AI's for all the domestic spying and lethal combat ops they want.

Re: The Doom Justifies the Valuation

#94

Post by grebc »

ajyoon wrote: post #18

I have never understood this line of thinking. Why would a company warn that their technology is dangerous if it wasn't? Looking at the ongoing Mythos export control issue, it's obviously not good for profits. If you assume AGI is possible, you must agree that it would be at the very least profoundly destabilizing. The companies are built around this assumption.

They banned exporting bad cryptography algorithms/code 30 years ago too.

People just love to talk about anything that tickling their fancies.

It’s all a fugazi.

Re: The Doom Justifies the Valuation

#95

Post by JMiao »

bryan0 wrote: post #66
ajyoon wrote: post #18

I have never understood this line of thinking. Why would a company warn that their technology is dangerous if it wasn't? Looking at the ongoing Mythos export control issue, it's obviously not good for profits. If you assume AGI is possible, you must agree that it would be at the very least profoundly destabilizing. The companies are built around this assumption.

I agree. There are 2 groups of people: 1. Those, like OP, that believe AI danger and disruption is all hype to boost valuations. 2. Those, like myself, that believe AI danger and disruption is very real and presents dilemmas (but also opportunities) for society, so we must tread carefully. The first position is not logically consistent with reality. The danger is real: we have already seen hints about how this will i…

that's an inaccurate characterization on #1. he's not saying ai risk is _all_ hype to boost valuations, but that it's misused to serve purposes other than warning.

Re: The Doom Justifies the Valuation

#96

Post by mizzao »

hintymad wrote: post #90

There are a few possible explanations of Dario and Anthropic's behavior, if you are not sure if all they want is pump up the valuation like me: - Anthropic has a cult-like culture. AI Safety is their religion. The AI Constitution is their bible. Dario is their cult leader. Employees are the apostles. They just really really believe their church, and only Dario is qualified to manage the AI safety. - Asymmetrical risk…

Is "being mocked" not also "facing the rage of many"? What do you imagine with the latter that would be so much worse?

Re: The Doom Justifies the Valuation

#97

Post by hintymad »

mizzao wrote: post #96
hintymad wrote: post #90

There are a few possible explanations of Dario and Anthropic's behavior, if you are not sure if all they want is pump up the valuation like me: - Anthropic has a cult-like culture. AI Safety is their religion. The AI Constitution is their bible. Dario is their cult leader. Employees are the apostles. They just really really believe their church, and only Dario is qualified to manage the AI safety. - Asymmetrical risk…

Is "being mocked" not also "facing the rage of many"? What do you imagine with the latter that would be so much worse?

I assume that "you didn't warn us" and "why are you so pessimistic" would lead to different scale of anger.

Re: The Doom Justifies the Valuation

#98

Post by anon373839 »

ajyoon wrote: post #18

I have never understood this line of thinking. Why would a company warn that their technology is dangerous if it wasn't? Looking at the ongoing Mythos export control issue, it's obviously not good for profits. If you assume AGI is possible, you must agree that it would be at the very least profoundly destabilizing. The companies are built around this assumption.

> Looking at the ongoing Mythos export control issue, it's obviously not good for profits.

This is not obvious at all. Anthropic's biggest investor was the catalyst for this action in referring the "jailbreak" (if you can even call it that) to the government. Now, Anthropic is sitting around a table with government officials who are designing benchmarks that will determine what Anthropic's competitors will be allowed to build. At this point, I have no evidence to rule out the possibility that Anthropic's leadership purposefully sought this outcome.

Re: The Doom Justifies the Valuation

#99

Post by gentooflux »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #79
britch wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why would a company warn that their technology is dangerous if it wasn't? Because it makes their technology seem more important and powerful? Do you usually believe 100% what a company says about itself? > Mythos export control issue, it's obviously not good for profits Who cares about profits? None of these companies make money like a business currently. It's all speculative valuation and influenced by the same hy…

When people discuss the negative effects of climate change, do you think that boosts fossil fuel company valuations by making their products seem more important and powerful?

Hell yes. More than a third of Americans would run their two and a half ton pickup trucks on burning copies of An Inconvenient Truth if it were at all possible

Re: The Doom Justifies the Valuation

#100

Post by anon373839 »

scarmig wrote: post #29
dodu_ wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[dead]

Regardless of whether you believe in doom or not, it's this kind of wild, willful misunderstanding that makes people roll their eyes and dismiss you. Yes, people at Anthropic (and OpenAI, for that matter!) really, genuinely do believe AI poses a potential existential threat to humanity; every single one that I know personally believes that. This has been pointed out hundreds of times, and to simply dismiss it as mark…

With the reality-bending financial incentives that these people have, I simply do not trust your or anyone else's assessment of the genuineness of their beliefs. And anyway, it's quite ironic that from godless San Francisco of all places, we are supposed to simply accept that the harmful acts of religious extremists are justified because, well, they do believe in their cause.
Post reply on HN