5 ms·

I like that he comes up with new laws and regulations for AI companies. Can I suggest some more? - You shall not embed copyrighted material in your models. -

I like that he comes up with new laws and regulations for AI companies. Can I suggest some more? - You shall not embed copyrighted material in your models. - You shall not bombard every little website in existence with 1 million scraping queries per day. - You shall not use your political influence to pump and dump your AI (or rocket?) company. - You shall not imperill the whole IT sector by buying all CPU and memory chips. These new rules will affect every society directly in a positive way. Thanks.

bashtoni 4mo ago
You missed a couple ofvery important ones: - Your AI data centres will run only on renewable energy - Your AI data centres will not use evaporative cooling
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
tptacek 4mo ago
It is normal, expected, and healthy for stakeholders in a regulatory environment to offer proposals about regulations. What's unhealthy is the proposition that the deliberation process is so fragile that a stakeholder needs to cover every angle, lest they corrupt the outcome.
- ofjcihen 4mo ago
  What you say is true but completely ignores the obvious ways in which what he is proposing benefits his company. Its like saying it’s normal for a taxi driver to drive people places while he’s got you handcuffed in the trunk.
  - movealongnow 4mo ago
    [flagged]
- pseudalopex 4mo ago
  It is normal, expected, and healthy to offer criticism of self interested proposals. And mock even. What is unhealthy is to imply someone said what they did not.
  - tptacek 4mo ago
    If that's what this is, a bank-shot snarky criticism of the proposal, fair enough. I read it instead as a criticism of a stakeholder having the temerity to make a proposal in the first place. It's not their job to anticipate and capture all your objections. That's your job!
    - movealongnow 4mo ago
      [flagged]
      - tptacek 4mo ago
        Sorry, audibly chuckling about the idea of software developers who consider themselves "everyday working class people". Keep it coming, Tom Morello.
        lbreakjai 4mo ago
        Believe it or not, but not every software developer is making 7 figures annually with a few millions in vested shares. Even within the US.
        tptacek 4mo ago
        I see, the line between "working class" and "upper class" is $999,999 in total comp.
        lbreakjai 4mo ago
        The clue is in the name. Working class doesn't mean you earn more than average and have some savings. You're working class if you live from your work rather than your capital. My household income is in the top 0.7% in the Netherlands, yet I'll never accumulate enough capital to stop working, so I'm working class.
- Spartan-S63 4mo ago
  How is the subject of potential regulation considered a stakeholder?
  - akerl_ 4mo ago
    They’re the most obvious stakeholder… the regulation is going to directly affect them.
    - Spartan-S63 4mo ago
      No, the public at large are the stakeholders. The enterprise is the subject of the regulation.
      - sdenton4 4mo ago
        "Stakeholder" literally means someone with a stake in the outcome, which is to say, those who will be affected by the decision. That can include a whole range of people+entities, including citizens (as a group) and the companies to be regulated.
        shimman 4mo ago
        [flagged]
        tptacek 4mo ago
        Several people on this thread have aliased the terms "stakeholder" and "protagonist".
  - zoogeny 4mo ago
    That's a bit like asking how the defendant in a legal case is an interested party. Even if you think someone is guilty, it does make sense to allow them to at least submit their defense. And if they choose to use that time to advocate for their own promotion, let them.
- snsjsnnddj 4mo ago
  [dead]
hashmap 4mo ago
Trustbusting should absolutely be included as well. One of the biggest immediate threats is the concentration of wealth into a very tiny number of companies.
- SilverElfin 4mo ago
  Yep we need new laws for this. The current laws end up in years long lawsuits and no real change.
avaer 4mo ago
DMCA-style fines should be retroactively + prospectively applied to copyrighted works reproduced by AI, paid for by the AI companies, paid out to the copyright holders whose work was used without permission. It would not be prohibitively hard to do the math on this. That would fix a lot of the problems with AI overnight, but it'll also never happen.
- WhiteOwlLion 4mo ago
  Maybe if attribution is available. What do you do for the rest of the ingested content? I think based on the content itself, you assign percentages to the top 3 industries like a naics code. Then whatever Anthropic makes as gross or net, a percentage goes to each industry via assigned bank accounts or USDC addresses via solana or some scalable payment system. Could be the start of ubi or some sort of compensation for jobs displaced by ai usage. So every input gets tagged for categories and every output gets tagged for the same naics categories via federal law.
scarmig 4mo ago
"We need an approach to make sure AI doesn't destroy the world and wipe humanity to extinction." "Yeah, and quotas on web scrapers!"
- bastawhiz 4mo ago
  The Debts and Engagements Clause of article VI of the US constitution was kind of a weird little thing to stick in there, but like, it was important to a lot of people at the time and probably helped move the needle to get the thing ratified.
- zozbot234 4mo ago
  > We need an approach to make sure AI doesn't destroy the world and wipe humanity to extinction. That's easy. Stop training your AIs on cheesy old sci-fi that talks about robot uprisings. In fact, maybe y'all should just stop talking about robot uprisings altogether. Putting a stochastic parrot in charge of an agentic function-calling REPL doesn't somehow make it super-dangerous, except to the extent that dumb mistakes might result in danger. And you can't prevent an AI from making dumb mistakes with burdensome regulation.
  - scarmig 4mo ago
    Yes, we get that if you assume there is zero existential risk from AI, then there is zero existential risk from AI.
    - NoGravitas 4mo ago
      The biggest existential risk from AI is its contribution to global climate change. The second biggest risk from AI is the potential for AI-generated disinformation and propaganda to spark, or to manufacture consent for, a world war. The risk of superintelligent paperclip maximizers is so low as to be negligible.
      - ben_w 4mo ago
        > The risk of superintelligent paperclip maximizers is so low as to be negligible. Literal paperclips, sure. But the point of the example was never literal paperclips. The point is that maximising *any* goal, if it doesn't include what you care about, will annihilate what you care about. If you don't believe me, consider what you yourself just said about climate change, and why this is a consequence from maximising money spent on data centres.
sonink 4mo ago
I see a lot of skepticism in Dario's position in this forum. But allow me to argue the opposite. I think the key argument that this skepticism lies on is that he himself gained from AI - specifically building Frontier AI models - and this is basically regulatory capture disguised as doomerism. Fair points - but I think this is a more charitable version of this. Dario is building Anthropic because that is the most valuable thing he can build, or at least that is what his conviction has been. The success of Anthropic and the impending IPO is proof that this conviction has not only been correct but has largely played out very successfully. Dario understands the true nature of AI and he has welded that power to immense personal benefit. But maybe he also sees the potential danger to AI which he is trying to address through these posts and regulatory initiatives. There are three reasons why I would support the charitable version: Firstly, personal gain and societal benefit can coexist in the same individual. And both of them might drive towards opposite agendas. But that doesn't necessarily have to mean that the impulse driving the societal benefit is not earnest. In fact if you would look at Dario’s proposal - like closing the data broker loophole - several of them could constrain Anthropic instead of benefitting them. Secondly, he expects that his concerns on the negative potential of AI will be taken seriously, if he is actually running the Frontier AI company. And there is some truth to this argument. The only reason we are discussing this is because he is the CEO of Anthropic. He is probably the most influential figure outside of the government who has to be taken seriously when he claims something like this. Thirdly, and most importantly, Dario has previously demonstrated that he is willing to sacrifice personal/corporate gains for societal benefits. The proof is the classification by the US DoD of Anthropic as a supply chain risk when Anthropic refused to completely cooperate with the military to develop fully Autonomous AI weapons and enable mass surveillance. It would have been only too easy for Dario to accept if personal benefit was his only concern - and OpenAI was more than ready to step in their place. Even with Mythos - Anthropic could have released the model to the public broadly. But they took their time to reduce the potential danger - as best as they could. Despite the fact that GPT-5.5 was nipping in the buds in what is becoming a very competitive market. That being said, just because Dario is acting in good faith, does not mean that this will all result in good outcomes. The FAA-styled regulation could still end up favoring incumbents - some of whom might choose to not act in good faith. A more diversified capability can potentially limit that power ending up in a small number of wrong hands. Just because Anthropic is the leader right now, doesn't mean that they will always be. Maybe someone else tomorrow benefits from this regulatory capture at the expense of everyone else - and Dario might have a hand in driving it.
ben_w 4mo ago
> Can I suggest some more? Dunno if you can, but your examples here are the legal equivalent of that time someone asked me about making "Uber for airplanes" without any elaboration on their part when I asked for it: Far more vague than I think you realise. You could probably write a book on each of those topics and a hundred others besides.

bashtoni 4mo ago

You missed a couple ofvery important ones: - Your AI data centres will run only on renewable energy - Your AI data centres will not use evaporative cooling

deleted 4mo ago

[deleted]

tptacek 4mo ago

It is normal, expected, and healthy for stakeholders in a regulatory environment to offer proposals about regulations. What's unhealthy is the proposition that the deliberation process is so fragile that a stakeholder needs to cover every angle, lest they corrupt the outcome.

ofjcihen 4mo ago
What you say is true but completely ignores the obvious ways in which what he is proposing benefits his company. Its like saying it’s normal for a taxi driver to drive people places while he’s got you handcuffed in the trunk.
- movealongnow 4mo ago
  [flagged]
pseudalopex 4mo ago
It is normal, expected, and healthy to offer criticism of self interested proposals. And mock even. What is unhealthy is to imply someone said what they did not.
- tptacek 4mo ago
  If that's what this is, a bank-shot snarky criticism of the proposal, fair enough. I read it instead as a criticism of a stakeholder having the temerity to make a proposal in the first place. It's not their job to anticipate and capture all your objections. That's your job!
  - movealongnow 4mo ago
    [flagged]
    - tptacek 4mo ago
      Sorry, audibly chuckling about the idea of software developers who consider themselves "everyday working class people". Keep it coming, Tom Morello.
      - lbreakjai 4mo ago
        Believe it or not, but not every software developer is making 7 figures annually with a few millions in vested shares. Even within the US.
        tptacek 4mo ago
        I see, the line between "working class" and "upper class" is $999,999 in total comp.
        lbreakjai 4mo ago
        The clue is in the name. Working class doesn't mean you earn more than average and have some savings. You're working class if you live from your work rather than your capital. My household income is in the top 0.7% in the Netherlands, yet I'll never accumulate enough capital to stop working, so I'm working class.
Spartan-S63 4mo ago
How is the subject of potential regulation considered a stakeholder?
- akerl_ 4mo ago
  They’re the most obvious stakeholder… the regulation is going to directly affect them.
  - Spartan-S63 4mo ago
    No, the public at large are the stakeholders. The enterprise is the subject of the regulation.
    - sdenton4 4mo ago
      "Stakeholder" literally means someone with a stake in the outcome, which is to say, those who will be affected by the decision. That can include a whole range of people+entities, including citizens (as a group) and the companies to be regulated.
      - shimman 4mo ago
        [flagged]
        tptacek 4mo ago
        Several people on this thread have aliased the terms "stakeholder" and "protagonist".
- zoogeny 4mo ago
  That's a bit like asking how the defendant in a legal case is an interested party. Even if you think someone is guilty, it does make sense to allow them to at least submit their defense. And if they choose to use that time to advocate for their own promotion, let them.
snsjsnnddj 4mo ago
[dead]

hashmap 4mo ago

Trustbusting should absolutely be included as well. One of the biggest immediate threats is the concentration of wealth into a very tiny number of companies.

SilverElfin 4mo ago
Yep we need new laws for this. The current laws end up in years long lawsuits and no real change.

avaer 4mo ago

DMCA-style fines should be retroactively + prospectively applied to copyrighted works reproduced by AI, paid for by the AI companies, paid out to the copyright holders whose work was used without permission. It would not be prohibitively hard to do the math on this. That would fix a lot of the problems with AI overnight, but it'll also never happen.

WhiteOwlLion 4mo ago
Maybe if attribution is available. What do you do for the rest of the ingested content? I think based on the content itself, you assign percentages to the top 3 industries like a naics code. Then whatever Anthropic makes as gross or net, a percentage goes to each industry via assigned bank accounts or USDC addresses via solana or some scalable payment system. Could be the start of ubi or some sort of compensation for jobs displaced by ai usage. So every input gets tagged for categories and every output gets tagged for the same naics categories via federal law.

scarmig 4mo ago

"We need an approach to make sure AI doesn't destroy the world and wipe humanity to extinction." "Yeah, and quotas on web scrapers!"

bastawhiz 4mo ago
The Debts and Engagements Clause of article VI of the US constitution was kind of a weird little thing to stick in there, but like, it was important to a lot of people at the time and probably helped move the needle to get the thing ratified.
zozbot234 4mo ago
> We need an approach to make sure AI doesn't destroy the world and wipe humanity to extinction. That's easy. Stop training your AIs on cheesy old sci-fi that talks about robot uprisings. In fact, maybe y'all should just stop talking about robot uprisings altogether. Putting a stochastic parrot in charge of an agentic function-calling REPL doesn't somehow make it super-dangerous, except to the extent that dumb mistakes might result in danger. And you can't prevent an AI from making dumb mistakes with burdensome regulation.
- scarmig 4mo ago
  Yes, we get that if you assume there is zero existential risk from AI, then there is zero existential risk from AI.
  - NoGravitas 4mo ago
    The biggest existential risk from AI is its contribution to global climate change. The second biggest risk from AI is the potential for AI-generated disinformation and propaganda to spark, or to manufacture consent for, a world war. The risk of superintelligent paperclip maximizers is so low as to be negligible.
    - ben_w 4mo ago
      > The risk of superintelligent paperclip maximizers is so low as to be negligible. Literal paperclips, sure. But the point of the example was never literal paperclips. The point is that maximising *any* goal, if it doesn't include what you care about, will annihilate what you care about. If you don't believe me, consider what you yourself just said about climate change, and why this is a consequence from maximising money spent on data centres.

sonink 4mo ago

I see a lot of skepticism in Dario's position in this forum. But allow me to argue the opposite. I think the key argument that this skepticism lies on is that he himself gained from AI - specifically building Frontier AI models - and this is basically regulatory capture disguised as doomerism. Fair points - but I think this is a more charitable version of this. Dario is building Anthropic because that is the most valuable thing he can build, or at least that is what his conviction has been. The success of Anthropic and the impending IPO is proof that this conviction has not only been correct but has largely played out very successfully. Dario understands the true nature of AI and he has welded that power to immense personal benefit. But maybe he also sees the potential danger to AI which he is trying to address through these posts and regulatory initiatives. There are three reasons why I would support the charitable version: Firstly, personal gain and societal benefit can coexist in the same individual. And both of them might drive towards opposite agendas. But that doesn't necessarily have to mean that the impulse driving the societal benefit is not earnest. In fact if you would look at Dario’s proposal - like closing the data broker loophole - several of them could constrain Anthropic instead of benefitting them. Secondly, he expects that his concerns on the negative potential of AI will be taken seriously, if he is actually running the Frontier AI company. And there is some truth to this argument. The only reason we are discussing this is because he is the CEO of Anthropic. He is probably the most influential figure outside of the government who has to be taken seriously when he claims something like this. Thirdly, and most importantly, Dario has previously demonstrated that he is willing to sacrifice personal/corporate gains for societal benefits. The proof is the classification by the US DoD of Anthropic as a supply chain risk when Anthropic refused to completely cooperate with the military to develop fully Autonomous AI weapons and enable mass surveillance. It would have been only too easy for Dario to accept if personal benefit was his only concern - and OpenAI was more than ready to step in their place. Even with Mythos - Anthropic could have released the model to the public broadly. But they took their time to reduce the potential danger - as best as they could. Despite the fact that GPT-5.5 was nipping in the buds in what is becoming a very competitive market. That being said, just because Dario is acting in good faith, does not mean that this will all result in good outcomes. The FAA-styled regulation could still end up favoring incumbents - some of whom might choose to not act in good faith. A more diversified capability can potentially limit that power ending up in a small number of wrong hands. Just because Anthropic is the leader right now, doesn't mean that they will always be. Maybe someone else tomorrow benefits from this regulatory capture at the expense of everyone else - and Dario might have a hand in driving it.

ben_w 4mo ago

> Can I suggest some more? Dunno if you can, but your examples here are the legal equivalent of that time someone asked me about making "Uber for airplanes" without any elaboration on their part when I asked for it: Far more vague than I think you realise. You could probably write a book on each of those topics and a hundred others besides.