To everyone who believes that this is some nefarious plot by CEOs to bring about regulation or to hide that they've hit a wall or whatever:
The AI risk arguments are philosophical arguments that are 20-30 years old and don't have anything to do with the current corporate landscape. They were thought of by people who really care about the issue and all the "gotcha" lines have well-developed counters. Of course they might be stuck in their ideology but they deserve a bit more credit.
I don't doubt that AI CEOs can profit from a crisis and that they don't necessarily have our best interests at heart. But this is the same way governments during COVID tested how much they can restrain freedom. This doesn't mean COVID doesn't exist or that vaccines are evil or ineffective or whatever. Same way here, if there is an advantage to CEOs to regulate things doesn't mean AIs can't kill us all and that regulation might bring us more time to solve alignment.
Also: I acccept I might be wrong and AI risk might be a fake issue and/or alignment might be impossible, but please bring better arguments if you want to convince me.
Yes, they are manufacturing consent for banning open-weight models while they privately do whatever they want without sharing anything with the public except dramatic warnings.
>One conference speaker, Grindr CEO George Arison, told the BBC he believed this week's comments from Coxon and others were indicative of an "anti-civilisational worldview at Anthropic".
>He called them "dangerous" and said they had prompted him to instruct some engineers at the LGBTQ+ dating app to stop using Anthropic's technology.
>"It is irresponsible for us as stewards of our shareholders' money to be relying on a business that does what this company does, in terms of its public statements," he said.
"Yes, the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders" but without any irony.
The actual risk from AI is not its "intelligence", but the profound stupidity of the humans connecting it to important infrastructure.
This has got to be the last straw with the anthropomorphization. I swear listening to the pro-AI crowd is like listening to an autistic child babble on and on and on about their way cool robot sketches in their notebooks. These are not adults and there are no robots.
It's just a bunch of drama from two American companies trying to lock in their lead via government regulation. Meanwhile I'll just keep using open-weight models.
To everyone who believes that this is some nefarious plot by CEOs to bring about regulation or to hide that they've hit a wall or whatever:
The AI risk arguments are philosophical arguments that are 20-30 years old and don't have anything to do with the current corporate landscape. They were thought of by people who really care about the issue and all the "gotcha" lines have well-developed counters. Of course they might be stuck in their ideology but they deserve a bit more credit.
I don't doubt that AI CEOs can profit from a crisis and that they don't necessarily have our best interests at heart. But this is the same way governments during COVID tested how much they can restrain freedom. This doesn't mean COVID doesn't exist or that vaccines are evil or ineffective or whatever. Same way here, if there is an advantage to CEOs to regulate things doesn't mean AIs can't kill us all and that regulation might bring us more time to solve alignment.
Also: I acccept I might be wrong and AI risk might be a fake issue and/or alignment might be impossible, but please bring better arguments if you want to convince me.
https://archive.ph/IsMB6
Is this a signal that open models are becoming good enough for a lot of people?
Yes, they are manufacturing consent for banning open-weight models while they privately do whatever they want without sharing anything with the public except dramatic warnings.
>One conference speaker, Grindr CEO George Arison, told the BBC he believed this week's comments from Coxon and others were indicative of an "anti-civilisational worldview at Anthropic".
>He called them "dangerous" and said they had prompted him to instruct some engineers at the LGBTQ+ dating app to stop using Anthropic's technology.
>"It is irresponsible for us as stewards of our shareholders' money to be relying on a business that does what this company does, in terms of its public statements," he said.
"Yes, the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders" but without any irony.
As long as they don't connect WOPR, I mean, Claude to the nukes, we'll be fine.
Who are they?
> Anthropic Says Iran Used Its American AI Model to Target U.S. Navy Warships - https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/anthropic-say...
Seems the US<>Iran war might actually be OpenAI<>Anthropic in reality. Are nation wars now proxy wars for our corporate overlords?
I don’t think openai decided to have the us attack iran in order to attack anthropic?
So no. This is not a war between our corporate overlords.
The actual risk from AI is not its "intelligence", but the profound stupidity of the humans connecting it to important infrastructure.
This has got to be the last straw with the anthropomorphization. I swear listening to the pro-AI crowd is like listening to an autistic child babble on and on and on about their way cool robot sketches in their notebooks. These are not adults and there are no robots.
This is literally the story of the boy who cried wolf.
You know how that story ends right?
It's just a bunch of drama from two American companies trying to lock in their lead via government regulation. Meanwhile I'll just keep using open-weight models.