23 ms·

> “We felt that it wouldn't actually help anyone for us to stop training AI models,” How magnanimous! They are only thinking of others, you see. They are rejec

• high_na_euv 8mo ago
  But what really AI safety is? Censorship?
  • deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
• davidguetta 8mo ago
  [flagged]
  • gehwartzen 8mo ago
    Well we teach kids not to yell “Fire!” In a crowded theatre or “N***!“ at their neighbor. We also teach our industrial machines to distinguish between fingers and bolts, our cars to not say “make a left turn now” when on a bridge, etc
    • rudhdb773b 8mo ago
      The critical point is who the "we" is. Is "we" the parents teaching their children their own unique values, or is the "we" a government or corporation forcing one set of values on all children. Why not encourage the users of AI to use a Safety.md (populated with some reasonable but optional defaults)?
      • dminik 8mo ago
        There's nothing a meaningless document can do when the AI is not aligned in the first place.
        • lupire 8mo ago
          "alignment" is the computer version for (philosophical not medical) "consciousness", a totally subjective, immeasurable concept.
          • dminik 8mo ago
            I think you have a misunderstanding of the term alignment. Really, you could replace "aligned" with "working" and "misaligned" with "broken". A washing machine has one goal, to wash your clothes. A washing machine that does not wash your clothes is broken. An AI system has some goal. A target acquisition AI system might be tasked with picking out enemies and friendlies from a camera feed. A system that does so reliably is working (aligned) a system that doesn't is broken (misaligned). There's no moral or philosophical angle necessary if your goal doesn't already include that. Aligned doesn't mean good and misaligned doesn't mean evil. The problem comes when your goal includes moral, ethical and philosophical judgements.
    • JuniperMesos 8mo ago
      > Riley: Hey, what's class > Huey: It means don't act like niggas > Grandad: S-see, that's what I'm talkin' about right there. We don't use the n-word in this house > Huey: Grandad, you said the word "nigga" 46 times yesterday. I counted > Grandad: Nigga, hush https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLodIw5iKX8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLodIw5iKX8 Funny scene, but it also illustrates a more serious point about (human) alignment - not all humans believe exactly the same things are good and bad, or consistently act in accordance with what they claim they believe is good. This is such a basic fact of human social life that it's almost banal to point it out explicitly; but if (specific) human beings or (specific) organizations of human beings are trying to align the AIs they are creating to human values, it will eventually become apparent that the notion of "human values" stops being coherent once you zoom in enough. Humans don't all share the same values, we aren't completely aligned with each other.
  • wattsy2025 8mo ago
    The most important part of AI safety is AI alignment: making sure AI does what we want. It's very hard because even if AI isn't trying to deceive you it can have bad outcomes by executing your request to the letter. The classical example is tasking an AI to make paperclips, training the AI with a reward for making more paperclips. Then the AI makes the most paperclips possible by strip mining the Earth and killing anything in its way. Sometimes you see this AI alignment problem in action. I once asked an older model to fix the tests and it eventually gave up and just deleted them
  • SlinkyOnStairs 8mo ago
    > I VERY LARGELY prefer an AI like grok that doesn't pretend and let the onus of interpretation to the user rather than a bunch of anonymous "researchers" that may be equally biased, at the extreme, may tell you that America's founding father were black women Setting aside for a moment that Grok is manipulated and biased to a hilarious extent. ("Elon is world champion at everything, including drinking piss") There is no such thing as "unbiased". There will always be bias in these systems, whether picked up from the training data, or the choices made by the AI's developers/researchers, even if the latter doesn't "intend" to add any bias. Ignoring this problem doesn't magically create a bias-free AI that "speaks the truth about the founding fathers". The bias in the training data, the implicit unconcious bias in the design decisions, that didn't come out of thin air. It's just somebody else's bias. All the existing texts on the founding fathers are filled with 250 years of bias, propaganda, and agenda pushing from all sorts of authors. There is no way to have no bias, no propaganda, no "agenda pushing" in the AI. The only thing that can be done is to acknowledge this problem, and try to steer the system to a neutral position. That will be "agenda pushing" of one's own, but that's the reality of all history and all historians since Herodotus. You just have to be honest about it. And you will observe that current AI companies are excessively lazy about this. They do not put in the work, but instead slap on a prompt begging the system to "pls be diverse" and try to call it a day. This does not work. > Of course saying to someone to go kill himslef is a prety sure 'no-no' but so many things are up to interpretation. Bear in mind that the context of Anthropic's pivot here are the Pentagon's dollars. This isn't just about "anti-woke AI", it's about killbots. Sure, Hegseth wants his robots to not do thoughtcrime about, say, trans people or the role of women in the military. But above all he wants to do a lot of murder. Antrophic dropping their position of "We shouldn't turn this technology we can barely control into murder machines" because they're running out of money is damnable.
    • lupire 8mo ago
      You understood the issue so well but still made the mistake you identified, by claiming that "neutral" exists. "Neutral" is a synonym for "bias toward status quo"
    • davidguetta 8mo ago
      This is a very fair answer but missing some points. I do personally believe that grok is a less biased against too many PC answers but you may disagree. "All the existing texts on the founding fathers are filled with 250 years of bias, propaganda, and agenda pushing from all sorts of authors." not sure of the point is tho ? Mine is that gemini was biaised so hard that it was generating diverse founding fathers which is factually untrue. The fact that history has a pro-american values when written by americans is also true but it has nothing to do really with the argument: if an IA is able to see through such propaganda and provide a balanced view on it as a human would this is enough In fact, i just asked grok "is the american founding constitution inhernetly good" and it gave me an aswer way more balanced than most american would i believe: "The U.S. Constitution, drafted in 1787 and ratified in 1788, is a foundational document that has shaped American governance and influenced democracies worldwide. Asking if it's "inherently good" (assuming that's what you meant by "inhernetly") invites a philosophical debate: "Inherent" implies something intrinsic and unchanging, independent of context, interpretation, or outcomes. Goodness, in this case, could mean moral, effective, just, or beneficial to society. From a truth-seeking perspective, I'll break this down non-partisanly, drawing on historical facts, strengths, criticisms, and evolving views. Spoiler: It's not inherently anything—it's a human creation with profound virtues but also deep flaws, and its "goodness" depends on how it's applied and amended." [can't paste everything so here's the conclusion] "Is It Inherently Good? A Balanced VerdictNo document is "inherently" good or bad—goodness is contextual and subjective. The Constitution isn't divine or eternal; it's a pragmatic compromise by flawed humans (55 delegates, all white men, many slaveowners). It has proven remarkably resilient and improvable, outlasting many governments, but it's not perfect or immune to abuse. Its goodness lies in its capacity for self-correction: 27 amendments have fixed some issues, though others (like wealth inequality or climate inaction) persist due to gridlock.If you're measuring by outcomes, the U.S. has achieved extraordinary things under it, but at great human cost—think Civil War, civil rights struggles, and ongoing divides. Philosophically, as Grok, I'd say tools like this are as good as the people wielding them. If "inherently good" means it embodies universal moral truths, partially yes (liberty, equality under law). But if it means flawless or unbiased, absolutely not.What aspect of the Constitution are you most curious about—its history, specific clauses, or modern reforms? That could help refine this." So it's definetely seeing through any form of propaganda you desribe
  • floatrock 8mo ago
    Was there actually a case of a model saying "America's founding father were black women", or is that just Elon fingering your amygdala with a ridiculous hypothetical that exists nowhere other than Elon's mind in order to justify Elon's personal bias tweaks when he doesn't like the wisdom-of-the-crowds answer his tools initially give?
    • bumby 8mo ago
      There were well-publicized cases of Gemini producing more diverse founding fathers images, female popes, etc. Also, snarky tone is against the HN guidelines.
      • floatrock 8mo ago
        Sorry, let me give a specific citation of Elon injecting his personal bias into the output of his tools: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jul/14/elon-musk-grok-ai-chatbot-x-linda-yaccarino https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jul/14/elon-musk... As for the "Elon fingering your amygdala with a ridiculous hypothetical" snark, well, I think the HN crowd in particular understands how the culture wars are just theater to push through billionaires' personal self-centered interests at the expense of everyone else. If that level of pull-aside-the-curtains pragmatism is really "snark against HN guidelines", well, I think 3/4 of the comments on the site would be flagged and deleted.
        • bumby 8mo ago
          Your question was “Was there actually a case of a model saying "America's founding father were black women" Whether someone else is injecting different bias is whataboutism. So it seems you are trying to make a different point, but not being clear about it. And your “I think the HN crowd understands…” point is just a “no true Scotsman” fallacy to veil an argument that goes against guidelines. Related to the broader topic, there is a role for self-policing if we don’t want the site to be a cesspool of rage bait.
          • floatrock 8mo ago
  • chasd00 8mo ago
    > Still waiting for an explicit answer on understand how 'safety' is truly distinguishable from 'censorship' or 'political correctness' i've said this many times but the concept of ai "safety" is really brand safety. What Anthropic is saying is they're willing to risk some bad press to bypass the additional training and find tuning to ensure their models do not output something people may find outrageous.
  • miltonlost 8mo ago
    david guetta, if that really is you, stick to music rather than using Nazi man's propaganda machine
• watwut 8mo ago
  > Oops, said the quiet part out loud that it’s all about money. “I mean, if all of our competitors are kicking puppies in the face, it doesn’t make sense for us to not do it too. Maybe we’ll also kick kittens while we’re at it”. I mean, yes, that is actually how world works. That is why we need safety, environmental and other anti-fraud regulations. Because without them, competition makes it so that every successful company will fraud, hurt and harm. Those who wont will be taken over by those who do.
  • rco8786 8mo ago
    Yes, this. It's unfortunate that anthropic dropped this and it's also exactly how the system is supposed to work. Companies don't regulate themselves, the government regulates the companies. Now, you may notice that the government is also choosing not to regulate these companies...which is another matter altogether.
    • ozmodiar 8mo ago
      It's so much worse than that. The government actively encourages a lack of business ethics. Heck, it started the term with a crypto rug pull. Money continues to funnel upward to all the worst players, and watchdogs are being targeted and destroyed. Even if you get new people in power, you're going to find the upper echelons completely full of outlandishly wealthy, morally bankrupt individuals that are very politically active. And now they have access to all of our communications and an AI to sift through it looking for dissent (or to spark its own). I guess this is the end game of "move fast and break things." The situation was never good, but it continues to get worse at an alarming rate.
      • mschuster91 8mo ago
        > Heck, it started the term with a crypto rug pull If you ask me... that wasn't a rug pull, at least not in the intent - it more was a way for foreign actors to funnel money directly to Trump and his family without any trace.
        • 8mo ago
• nsbk 8mo ago
  Since it is all about money, I just did vote with my wallet and cancelled the Max subscription
  • nullocator 8mo ago
    If you're a U.S. citizen, tax dollars from you and others will backstop any cancelled subscriptions, I guess good on you for not trying to pay them twice, though you get zero benefit with this approach.
    • vibrio 8mo ago
      You've succinctly identified and communicated a real problem. In your opinion, what is the best approach, if any, to attempt to address it?
      • chasd00 8mo ago
        > In your opinion, what is the best approach, if any, to attempt to address it? There aren't many options for fighting the tax man, "In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes". You're only option is to leave the US for somewhere better.
        • b112 8mo ago
          I guess you don't know about how taxes work for Americans? Living abroad typically changes nothing, they still owe tax. Maybe an American can chime in here on this...
          • WorldMaker 8mo ago
            Correct, the US is one of the few countries that tries to collect (Federal) income tax from all citizens regardless of the country they are currently living in. To be fair, when you can prove that income is entirely foreign (not a single US company in the chain of ownership) that income becomes almost entirely deductible and the tax reporting essentially just a census on how well US citizens are doing from an income standpoint globally. (For people that want economics analyses of US influence in global politics, that census can be handy to spin.) I think the root problem with how the US currently spends its tax dollars is the above "vote with your wallet" belief in the first place. "Vote with your wallet" implies that the rich deserve more votes. That's not (representative) democracy, that is oligarchy. Right now the US has two political parties that are both "vote with your wallet parties". They both act like they are bake sales that constantly need everyone's $20 bills just to "survive", but as much as anything they are trying to make US citizens complicit in agreeing that the rich deserve more votes and should control more US policy. I think the only real solution to a lot of US ills is drastic Campaign Finance Reform.
• isodev 8mo ago
  Indeed, Anthropic can’t afford to be the ones that impose any kind of sense in the market - that’s supposed to be the job of the government by creating policy, regulations and installing watchdogs to monitor things. But lucky for the AI companies, most of them are based in place that only has a government on paper and everyone forgot where that paper is.
  • nickserv 8mo ago
    The government is why they are dropping their pledge. https://apnews.com/article/anthropic-hegseth-ai-pentagon-military-3d86c9296fe953ec0591fcde6a613aba https://apnews.com/article/anthropic-hegseth-ai-pentagon-mil...
    • isodev 8mo ago
      That's because their government is asking for things that shouldn't be asked - again, no regulation, no oversight.
      • nickserv 8mo ago
        The government is forcing them to change their policy, by definition that is regulation and oversight. Let's say that the government was forcing a company to change their overall right-to-repair or return policy in order to avoid being on a blacklist, would that not be seen as oversight and regulation? Whether the regulation is legitimate or of benefit is a different argument.
        • GrinningFool 8mo ago
          I think GP was referred to lack of regulation and oversight over the government.
          • lupire 8mo ago
            Of course, but that is incoherent. Regulation and oversight is government.
• surgical_fire 8mo ago
  > For all of you who thought Anthropic were “the good guys” Was anyone fooled by this? I mean, I know this is HN and there is a demographic here that gets all misty eyed about the benevolence of corporations. It takes a special kind of naivety to believe in those claims.
  • pjmlp 8mo ago
    Plenty of people here actually bought into the do no evil, how great Apple is for the environment (with throw away soldered hardware), or whatever.
    • surgical_fire 8mo ago
      Oh yes, which is why I made the consideration that I should expect this sort of naivety here.
• akudha 8mo ago
  they only care about winning To be fair, this is true in nearly all industries and for nearly all companies. Almost everyone is chasing money and monopoly. Not that it makes it right, just pointing out it isn’t unique or even interesting about the AI companies
  • amunozo 8mo ago
    Of course, but Anthropic is particularly insufferable in this respect.
• jlaternman 8mo ago
  Actually this makes sense to me. It sounds like they are in a cutthroat market, and realised they couldn't afford to stake that principle. And that it wouldn't matter if they did – it would just assure them being handicapped in a field where no others followed suit. Better hills to die on.