4 ms·
That would be Anthropic.
by criddell 4mo ago
That would be Anthropic.
- CamperBob2 4mo agoWell, Anthropic thinks it should be the Trump administration [1]. This whole business just keeps getting dumber. 1: https://darioamodei.com/post/policy-on-the-ai-exponential https://darioamodei.com/post/policy-on-the-ai-exponential
- solenoid0937 4mo agoRead the actual essay. I cannot possibly imagine how you come to that conclusion unless you're just arguing in bad faith.
- CamperBob2 4mo agoNo. You read the actual essay, then explain how we're supposed to interpret this more charitably: Frontier AI models, like airplanes, should be required to go through technical testing and auditing, and their release should be blocked or reversed as a threat to public safety if they do not meet high standards of safety. I am grateful to see the Trump administration’s Executive Order move incrementally towards a greater role for government in AI, though Anthropic’s proposal recommends even further action. They are all-but-literally sucking up to the administration that declared their company a supply-chain risk, arguing that the same administration should be given gatekeeping authority over all high-quality LLMs including open-weight releases. Go gaslight somebody else.
- solenoid0937 4mo agoThis is a pretty reasonable statement and I'm not sure how you could interpret this as "sucking up to the admin."
- CamperBob2 4mo agoIt's a pretty reasonable statement if you work for Anthropic and are eyeing your stock options nervously and your competitors even more so.
- solenoid0937 4mo agoEveryone that isn't a bitter cynic must be a shill.
- senordevnyc 4mo agoI’ve noticed that too many HN folks seem to think that cynicism makes them more intelligent. I think it must be some kind of insecurity, about not wanting to be seen as naive or something. It’s pretty sad though, I wonder how some of these people find any peace or joy in their lives.
- solenoid0937 4mo agoIt's a very common failure mode amongst the chronically online. It's a way for people to feel superior over others - really, they're just depriving themselves of joy and the idea that good things can and do exist in the world.
- lbreakjai 4mo agoBelieving they have any interests other than theirs at heart is like believing the stripper is really in love with you. That's not cynicism, that's just common sense.
- senordevnyc 4mo agoDo you feel really smart now?
- ben_w 4mo agoI can read it as both TBH. First sentence by itself is mundane "regulators are good", which most people agree with, and also libertarians will object to regardless of leader. Second sentence is obviously sucking up, though is the same level of sucking up found on every stereotypical LinkedIn post.
- arkadiytehgraet 4mo agoYou got baited by a confirmed Anthropic shill, see more info here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48270186 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48270186
- CamperBob2 4mo agoI hate to accuse people of shilling (and HN hates those accusations as well, policy-wise). And there are ways to defend Amodei's point, or at least there would be if he and his friends hadn't been beating the same drum since GPT2. But I tend to agree, just saying it's a "pretty reasonable statement" and leaving it at that is beyond the pale for anyone who doesn't have an undisclosed stake in the argument.
- solenoid0937 4mo agoThis is like the most milquetoast stance in the AI safety community. It's great the Trump admin did something, no one expected them to, and they should have done more. Very powerful tools released to the public should be regulated for safety. That is "pretty reasonable" to most people (except the tech-libertarian crowd).
- CamperBob2 4mo agoFine, call me a tech-libertarian. I don't think Donald Trump should be involved in regulating AI.
- solenoid0937 4mo agoEven a broken clock tells the right time twice a day. This was an objectively good thing.
- trollbridge 4mo agoSo, will the Chinese models agree to let the U.S. government also vet them first before release?
- yonaguska 4mo agoI agree with your sentiment but not your conclusion. They don't want this administration specifically to have gatekeeping authority, what they want is any administration to say that they are gatekeeping, so that they can regulate the competition out of existence. Of course the actual checks and balances will be near pointless in effect, but expensive to implement nonetheless.
- CamperBob2 4mo agoOf course the actual checks and balances will be near pointless in effect My concern is that they won't be pointless in effect. Make no mistake: if Amodei has his way, possession of unvetted model weights will be treated like possession of CSAM is today. And at the same time Amodei calls for that, others are calling for the deployment of technical measures that will make it easier to enforce such laws. All to the sound of thunderous applause on "Hacker News."
- FrustratedMonky 4mo agoHow do you get "Anthropic thinks it should be the Trump administration" From that paragraph? Even granting it is sucking up, that is not replacing.
- CamperBob2 4mo agoBecause that's who will make and enforce the rules. Rules that, naturally, Amodei will help write. If you think this is OK, I'm not sure what led you to a site called "Hacker News," but fortunately there are plenty of others.
- FrustratedMonky 4mo agoNo, it is not OK. But also, not what you quoted says. Not sure who you are arguing with really. There seems to be a few logical leaps in between each response. I also didn't say anything like that.
- CamperBob2 4mo agoYou asked, I answered. The direct and immediate effect of Amodei getting what he asks for in that essay will be to empower the Trump administration to approve model releases.
- CamperBob2 4mo agoWell, that post certainly aged well.