6 ms·

Anthropic using marketing to convince people their models are more advanced, better built, or that AI is a threat that needs to be regulated because only they h

Anthropic using marketing to convince people their models are more advanced, better built, or that AI is a threat that needs to be regulated because only they have the answer? I’m shocked. More seriously, so far I haven’t seen much indication that Mythos is more than Opus with a security focused code analysis harness. That said, the fact it can find these bugs in an automated fashion is the more important takeaway outside of the hype. I’m curious what the error rate is on the detections, because none of that means much if it is wrong 90% of the time and we are only hearing about the examples that are useful marketing.

johnbarron 5mo ago
>> Anthropic using marketing to convince people their models are more advanced, better built, or that AI is a threat that needs to be regulated because only they have the answer? I’m shocked. I remember when OpenAI was saying GPT-2 was too dangerous to release.
- 2ndorderthought 5mo ago
  "it can almost like write 2 paragraphs!" "It might be conscious" "this is basically AGI, we had to fire someone who spilled the beans"
  - etiam 5mo ago
    I always thought he was fired for making crackpot statements to the press in reference to his professional capacity, and thus creating bad PR and embarrassing spectacle for his employer. Seems like legitimate reasons to me.
    - ZeroGravitas 5mo ago
      An interesting question now is whether he had standard mental health issues, or if he was an early example of AI psychosis or whatever we call people who are falling in love with their AI chatbots because they tell them how smart they are.
      - paradox242 5mo ago
        Considering Richard Dawkins has recently succumbed to the same delusion it is a reminder that no matter how intelligent someone may otherwise be, we are all human and have certain tendencies and blind spots; anthropomorphizing non-entities being one of those.
        dmix 5mo ago
        Richard Dawkins is 85 to be fair, just like Bernie Sanders is 84 when he made similar comments. The other guy worked on Google's AI safety team where one would expect he'd have a basic grasp of how the technology works before making outlandish claims.
        surgical_fire 5mo ago
        One phenomenon that spooks me is when intelligent people believe in idiotic things. It makes me wonder if there's a wrong turn in the road that I too might fall in the same pit.
        etiam 5mo ago
        Vigilance is warranted, I think. I can't find it right now, but something came up a few years ago (probably on HN) about highly intelligent people being more adept at making up arguments to rationalize beliefs and actions that they had taken for other reasons entirely. Sort of makes sense that wielding a more complex mind would offer more complex ways to go wrong, doesn't it?
        therealpygon 5mo ago
        And on balance, it also can mean that they make connections and see truth where others only see the facade. Both statements can (and are true) because highly intelligent people are still just people. Some people’s “delusions” are absolutely correct, and others “facts” are nothing more than anecdotes told to convince themselves of what they want to believe. Sounds more like “intelligence” isn’t the only defining metric for such behavior to occur in people, because that describes a lot of less intelligent people too. Though, I suspect highly intelligent people are at least somewhat more likely to end up on the “correct” side of the facts.
    - deleted 5mo ago
      [deleted]
- stingraycharles 5mo ago
  I remember when there was a guy at Google years a few years ago that was convinced that they had an internal, sentient creature in their labs (I think maybe 4 years ago?) If I’m not mistaken, after the media cycle, he lost his job for breaking confidentiality. That was the opposite of marketing, Google really didn’t get how to turn this into a product until ChatGPT happened.
  - player1234 5mo ago
    [dead]
  - jabwd 5mo ago
    They most likely understood that it wasn't viable for anything. OpenAI just yolo'd it and now we're dealing with the fallout. I'm fairly certain that any management layer at google isn't going to say yes to "invest 5 billion to make 10 million" scheme that OpenAI, Anthropic, are currently running.
    - gofreddygo 5mo ago
      I for one cant wait for the 10 million to go all the way to zero
    - mistrial9 5mo ago
      "ChatGPT has over 900 million weekly active users worldwide. ... ChatGPT Plus has around 50 million paying subscribers"
      - muwtyhg 5mo ago
        What you have typed does not address anything the person you are responding to said. With those 50 million subscribers, how much do they pay and how much do they cost? That is the only relevant piece of information when discussing the investment and returns of OpenAI.
        mistrial9 5mo ago
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
- neuronexmachina 5mo ago
  Context from 2019: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPT-2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPT-2 >While previous OpenAI models had been made immediately available to the public, OpenAI initially refused to make a public release of GPT-2's source code when announcing it in February, citing the risk of malicious use;[8][5] limited access to the model (i.e. an interface that allowed input and provided output, not the source code itself) was allowed for selected press outlets on announcement.[8] One commonly-cited justification was that, since generated text was usually completely novel, it could be used by spammers to evade automated filters; OpenAI demonstrated a version of GPT-2 fine-tuned to "generate infinite positive – or negative – reviews of products".[8] >Another justification was that GPT-2 could be used to generate text that was obscene or racist. Researchers such as Jeremy Howard warned of "the technology to totally fill Twitter, email, and the web up with reasonable-sounding, context-appropriate prose, which would drown out all other speech and be impossible to filter".[18] ...
  - pixl97 5mo ago
    It's kind of funny watching the behavior on the forum of different groups with different beliefs. "AI can't do anything harmful at all, kick this shit up to 11. It's all marketing, bla bla" and "My grandma gave away all her money to AI bots and is now starving in the street. My uncle murdered his wife and is trying to get married to GPT-4o. He thinks they are going to elope to a data center on a tropical island and live happily ever after". I think the 'AI can do no harm, it's marketing" people are really disconnected from reality and that any other product that behaved in the same manner would have been banned in most places.
    - abustamam 5mo ago
      Related: https://youtu.be/Ykvf3MunGf8?si=UEIMRdrMWUFF6V8Q https://youtu.be/Ykvf3MunGf8?si=UEIMRdrMWUFF6V8Q AI chatbots have caused real harm. It has tragically convinced and encouraged a number of people to commit suicide, to say nothing about scams. It is having a real effect on the social fabric of our society. I don't understand what point the people who blame the dangers of AI on marketing.
- slipnslider 5mo ago
  And Anthropic was founded by former, high ranking OpenAI employees so they were accustomed to the classic "its so dangerous we can't release it" trope. It sounds like Mythos is good but none of us know exactly how good since they haven't released it yet. It also sounds like Anthropic is compute starved which is probably the biggest reason it has had a public release
- DANmode 5mo ago
  > I remember when OpenAI was saying GPT-2 was too dangerous to release. The world didn’t end yet - but did it improve?

johnbarron 5mo ago

>> Anthropic using marketing to convince people their models are more advanced, better built, or that AI is a threat that needs to be regulated because only they have the answer? I’m shocked. I remember when OpenAI was saying GPT-2 was too dangerous to release.

2ndorderthought 5mo ago
"it can almost like write 2 paragraphs!" "It might be conscious" "this is basically AGI, we had to fire someone who spilled the beans"
- etiam 5mo ago
  I always thought he was fired for making crackpot statements to the press in reference to his professional capacity, and thus creating bad PR and embarrassing spectacle for his employer. Seems like legitimate reasons to me.
  - ZeroGravitas 5mo ago
    An interesting question now is whether he had standard mental health issues, or if he was an early example of AI psychosis or whatever we call people who are falling in love with their AI chatbots because they tell them how smart they are.
    - paradox242 5mo ago
      Considering Richard Dawkins has recently succumbed to the same delusion it is a reminder that no matter how intelligent someone may otherwise be, we are all human and have certain tendencies and blind spots; anthropomorphizing non-entities being one of those.
      - dmix 5mo ago
        Richard Dawkins is 85 to be fair, just like Bernie Sanders is 84 when he made similar comments. The other guy worked on Google's AI safety team where one would expect he'd have a basic grasp of how the technology works before making outlandish claims.
      - surgical_fire 5mo ago
        One phenomenon that spooks me is when intelligent people believe in idiotic things. It makes me wonder if there's a wrong turn in the road that I too might fall in the same pit.
        etiam 5mo ago
        Vigilance is warranted, I think. I can't find it right now, but something came up a few years ago (probably on HN) about highly intelligent people being more adept at making up arguments to rationalize beliefs and actions that they had taken for other reasons entirely. Sort of makes sense that wielding a more complex mind would offer more complex ways to go wrong, doesn't it?
        therealpygon 5mo ago
        And on balance, it also can mean that they make connections and see truth where others only see the facade. Both statements can (and are true) because highly intelligent people are still just people. Some people’s “delusions” are absolutely correct, and others “facts” are nothing more than anecdotes told to convince themselves of what they want to believe. Sounds more like “intelligence” isn’t the only defining metric for such behavior to occur in people, because that describes a lot of less intelligent people too. Though, I suspect highly intelligent people are at least somewhat more likely to end up on the “correct” side of the facts.
  - deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
stingraycharles 5mo ago
I remember when there was a guy at Google years a few years ago that was convinced that they had an internal, sentient creature in their labs (I think maybe 4 years ago?) If I’m not mistaken, after the media cycle, he lost his job for breaking confidentiality. That was the opposite of marketing, Google really didn’t get how to turn this into a product until ChatGPT happened.
- player1234 5mo ago
  [dead]
- jabwd 5mo ago
  They most likely understood that it wasn't viable for anything. OpenAI just yolo'd it and now we're dealing with the fallout. I'm fairly certain that any management layer at google isn't going to say yes to "invest 5 billion to make 10 million" scheme that OpenAI, Anthropic, are currently running.
  - gofreddygo 5mo ago
    I for one cant wait for the 10 million to go all the way to zero
  - mistrial9 5mo ago
    "ChatGPT has over 900 million weekly active users worldwide. ... ChatGPT Plus has around 50 million paying subscribers"
    - muwtyhg 5mo ago
      What you have typed does not address anything the person you are responding to said. With those 50 million subscribers, how much do they pay and how much do they cost? That is the only relevant piece of information when discussing the investment and returns of OpenAI.
      - mistrial9 5mo ago
deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
neuronexmachina 5mo ago
Context from 2019: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPT-2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPT-2 >While previous OpenAI models had been made immediately available to the public, OpenAI initially refused to make a public release of GPT-2's source code when announcing it in February, citing the risk of malicious use;[8][5] limited access to the model (i.e. an interface that allowed input and provided output, not the source code itself) was allowed for selected press outlets on announcement.[8] One commonly-cited justification was that, since generated text was usually completely novel, it could be used by spammers to evade automated filters; OpenAI demonstrated a version of GPT-2 fine-tuned to "generate infinite positive – or negative – reviews of products".[8] >Another justification was that GPT-2 could be used to generate text that was obscene or racist. Researchers such as Jeremy Howard warned of "the technology to totally fill Twitter, email, and the web up with reasonable-sounding, context-appropriate prose, which would drown out all other speech and be impossible to filter".[18] ...
- pixl97 5mo ago
  It's kind of funny watching the behavior on the forum of different groups with different beliefs. "AI can't do anything harmful at all, kick this shit up to 11. It's all marketing, bla bla" and "My grandma gave away all her money to AI bots and is now starving in the street. My uncle murdered his wife and is trying to get married to GPT-4o. He thinks they are going to elope to a data center on a tropical island and live happily ever after". I think the 'AI can do no harm, it's marketing" people are really disconnected from reality and that any other product that behaved in the same manner would have been banned in most places.
  - abustamam 5mo ago
    Related: https://youtu.be/Ykvf3MunGf8?si=UEIMRdrMWUFF6V8Q https://youtu.be/Ykvf3MunGf8?si=UEIMRdrMWUFF6V8Q AI chatbots have caused real harm. It has tragically convinced and encouraged a number of people to commit suicide, to say nothing about scams. It is having a real effect on the social fabric of our society. I don't understand what point the people who blame the dangers of AI on marketing.
slipnslider 5mo ago
And Anthropic was founded by former, high ranking OpenAI employees so they were accustomed to the classic "its so dangerous we can't release it" trope. It sounds like Mythos is good but none of us know exactly how good since they haven't released it yet. It also sounds like Anthropic is compute starved which is probably the biggest reason it has had a public release
DANmode 5mo ago
> I remember when OpenAI was saying GPT-2 was too dangerous to release. The world didn’t end yet - but did it improve?