5 ms·

To summarize what they've already been doing: - filtering out people from the wrong side of "all humanity", years before it was demanded by the government - d

To summarize what they've already been doing: - filtering out people from the wrong side of "all humanity", years before it was demanded by the government - downgrading their models in arbitrary ways (later saying "sorry but not really") - actively sabotaging the replies, as in covertly modifying them to feed the users incorrect results What's next to expect from Anthropic? Malware to brick your machine if they don't like you? Extending this to more people they don't like? I think I already can see how Dario's Amodei utopian visions of the future of "all humanity" are going to unfold.

solenoid0937 4mo ago
HN hysteria is ridiculous. All of this is totally understandable if you take the perspective that these people genuinely believe they're building superintelligence. The overwhelming majority of the AI safety crowd - which has poured more of their life and time into thinking about these problems than the average HN armchair commentator ever would - understands that: - you want to prevent China from getting to superintelligence first - you must gate access of SI to known good actors - and that this is a race that will result in the extinction of humanity if you fail in these goals Literally everything these people do is totally understandable if you drop the assumption that they're lying when they say "we think we are building superintelligence."
- orbital-decay 4mo ago
  The purpose of system is what it does. Can you read their previous musings about the glorious future, look at what they actually do, read Amodei's batshit insane nationalistic rants, and say in all seriousness yeah it's the kind of people I want to entrust my entire future life? >you want to prevent China from getting to superintelligence first I don't. Prevent, not even outpace? Why? Seems like you're assuming China "winning" whatever race it is effectively ends the humanity. Right now I think Chinese labs are way more mature about this, and Anthropic is way more dangerous than them. And how does it fit into the "for the benefit of all humanity" narrative we keep hearing? Is China wrong humanity? Who else is going to end up in the wrong part? Are you sure it's not you? >if you drop the assumption that they're lying when they say "we think we are building superintelligence." I never assumed that, I know perfectly who Anthropic are and that they believe everything they say as self-evident, without having any doubts. And I know they're the kind of people who can convince themselves in anything, because they're obviously smarter than everyone else, and become detached from reality. The entire US "AI safety community" was born in rationalist circles and is largely like this, it's a very specific cult. This is exactly the kind of people who are going to create hell on Earth for you and the rest if given even a lick of actual power, and perfectly rationalize it as a necessity.
  - solenoid0937 4mo ago
    [flagged]
    - orbital-decay 4mo ago
      >Please actually do a modicum of research into AI safety. Your comment is the equivalent of a patient with zero context, arguing against the position of established medical science. What makes you think I didn't? You're talking like it's self-evident and adopt the condescending tone from the start, without giving any actual arguments why. (I'm not really interested in them as all these discussions are pointless and we had them back in ~2015) >A "cult" implies belief in something unknowable/unprovable. Yes, precisely. Also the gods and religious practices. Rationalists and subsequently AI safety branch invented a religion in a roundabout way. >"The entire medical community was born in medical circles and it's a very specific cult" Medicine is largely based on evidence and real-life observations, unlike AI safety which is based on belief in something that doesn't exist and some unprovable lore that is entirely rationalized without any grounding, and is expected to be self-evident (because it obviously is) and believed by the others. One is science, another is policy. >Are you familiar with the history of the PRC? Yes, I know it extremely well. I also know the history of the US, am familiar with the people who do AI research in the US from before they started doing this, and can see the actual reality.
      - solenoid0937 4mo ago
        > Rationalists and subsequently AI safety branch invented a religion in a roundabout way If you are arguing in good faith you can very clearly reason about any given AI safety take. Case in point, you refused to engage with most of the questions because you know the conclusions they lead to. > Medicine is largely based on evidence and real-life observations, unlike AI safety "AI safety doesn't exist" is certainly a take. > Yes, I know it extremely well. I also know the history of the US and see the actual reality. Why do you think it's better that a country that turns its citizens into a pulp for criticizing the government, and censors most media to control its citizens' thoughts, reach SI before one that is democratically elected and in which you can generally criticize the government?
- Biganon 4mo ago
  > HN hysteria is ridiculous. > this is a race that will result in the extinction of humanity if you fail in these goals
  - solenoid0937 4mo ago
    Ah yes, the very hysterical take that superintelligence must be carefully developed, or it likely ends badly for all of us. How irrational and hysterical of me!
    - Biganon 4mo ago
      How does it lead to the end of humanity if China reaches it first? You really think the US is more trustworthy?
      - solenoid0937 4mo ago
        What are the PRC's values? How are individual freedoms in China? What happens if you criticize the government as a Chinese citizen? Is it a good thing if a government that turns its citizens into red pulp for criticism, or disappears them in the middle of the night, or bans access to most media, is the first to a godlike superintelligence that gives them de-facto control of (and impose their values upon) the whole world? Or is it better if democratic nations get there first? If the latter, which democratic nations are best positioned to get to superintelligence before China?
        orbital-decay 4mo ago
        Can you substitute PRC/China for Anthropic and try answering your questions?
        solenoid0937 4mo ago
        No company will own superintelligence. Governments will, just like governments own nuclear weapons (developed by companies). So the comparison is with the US, not Anthropic. The US doesn't turn its citizens into a fine red purée for criticizing it. The US doesn't censor most media. It is strictly better for a democratic nation like the US to get to superintelligence before a country that will gladly blend its citizens for criticizing it, and censor anything that dares to challenge its power.
- Laurel1234 4mo ago
  > All of this is totally understandable if you take the perspective that these people genuinely believe they're building superintelligence. They aren't, they are building LLMs. They aren't even building AGI and they all know it. Hell, even if they came up with AGI, then Anthropic's service model would become slavery so I'm not sure why they'd want to.
  - solenoid0937 4mo ago
    > They aren't even building AGI and they all know it. That's a strong claim. Why do you believe they're lying about their beliefs? Have you ever interacted with the safety crowd or people that work at labs? They all seem to have high conviction in my experience.
    - Laurel1234 4mo ago
      > Why do you believe they're lying about their beliefs? Because they lie about everything? They're adding more parameters to LLMs and pushing some more vibecoded slop on top of their harnesses, how do you figure that's gonna bring about AGI. Yeah Mythos has 5T parameters, but when we get to 7 5T it'll definitely become sentient bro just 2.5T more params bro you'll see. Not to mention I still haven't heard a single explanation for why we could possibly want to give our IDEs consciousness.
  - nonethewiser 4mo ago
    He overstated it. Trying to protect yourself from being cloned by competitors just makes sense from Anthropic's perspective. It doesnt require a belief that you are building super intelligence. You could be building PracticalBathroomWidget#467.

solenoid0937 4mo ago

HN hysteria is ridiculous. All of this is totally understandable if you take the perspective that these people genuinely believe they're building superintelligence. The overwhelming majority of the AI safety crowd - which has poured more of their life and time into thinking about these problems than the average HN armchair commentator ever would - understands that: - you want to prevent China from getting to superintelligence first - you must gate access of SI to known good actors - and that this is a race that will result in the extinction of humanity if you fail in these goals Literally everything these people do is totally understandable if you drop the assumption that they're lying when they say "we think we are building superintelligence."

orbital-decay 4mo ago
The purpose of system is what it does. Can you read their previous musings about the glorious future, look at what they actually do, read Amodei's batshit insane nationalistic rants, and say in all seriousness yeah it's the kind of people I want to entrust my entire future life? >you want to prevent China from getting to superintelligence first I don't. Prevent, not even outpace? Why? Seems like you're assuming China "winning" whatever race it is effectively ends the humanity. Right now I think Chinese labs are way more mature about this, and Anthropic is way more dangerous than them. And how does it fit into the "for the benefit of all humanity" narrative we keep hearing? Is China wrong humanity? Who else is going to end up in the wrong part? Are you sure it's not you? >if you drop the assumption that they're lying when they say "we think we are building superintelligence." I never assumed that, I know perfectly who Anthropic are and that they believe everything they say as self-evident, without having any doubts. And I know they're the kind of people who can convince themselves in anything, because they're obviously smarter than everyone else, and become detached from reality. The entire US "AI safety community" was born in rationalist circles and is largely like this, it's a very specific cult. This is exactly the kind of people who are going to create hell on Earth for you and the rest if given even a lick of actual power, and perfectly rationalize it as a necessity.
- solenoid0937 4mo ago
  [flagged]
  - orbital-decay 4mo ago
    >Please actually do a modicum of research into AI safety. Your comment is the equivalent of a patient with zero context, arguing against the position of established medical science. What makes you think I didn't? You're talking like it's self-evident and adopt the condescending tone from the start, without giving any actual arguments why. (I'm not really interested in them as all these discussions are pointless and we had them back in ~2015) >A "cult" implies belief in something unknowable/unprovable. Yes, precisely. Also the gods and religious practices. Rationalists and subsequently AI safety branch invented a religion in a roundabout way. >"The entire medical community was born in medical circles and it's a very specific cult" Medicine is largely based on evidence and real-life observations, unlike AI safety which is based on belief in something that doesn't exist and some unprovable lore that is entirely rationalized without any grounding, and is expected to be self-evident (because it obviously is) and believed by the others. One is science, another is policy. >Are you familiar with the history of the PRC? Yes, I know it extremely well. I also know the history of the US, am familiar with the people who do AI research in the US from before they started doing this, and can see the actual reality.
    - solenoid0937 4mo ago
      > Rationalists and subsequently AI safety branch invented a religion in a roundabout way If you are arguing in good faith you can very clearly reason about any given AI safety take. Case in point, you refused to engage with most of the questions because you know the conclusions they lead to. > Medicine is largely based on evidence and real-life observations, unlike AI safety "AI safety doesn't exist" is certainly a take. > Yes, I know it extremely well. I also know the history of the US and see the actual reality. Why do you think it's better that a country that turns its citizens into a pulp for criticizing the government, and censors most media to control its citizens' thoughts, reach SI before one that is democratically elected and in which you can generally criticize the government?
Biganon 4mo ago
> HN hysteria is ridiculous. > this is a race that will result in the extinction of humanity if you fail in these goals
- solenoid0937 4mo ago
  Ah yes, the very hysterical take that superintelligence must be carefully developed, or it likely ends badly for all of us. How irrational and hysterical of me!
  - Biganon 4mo ago
    How does it lead to the end of humanity if China reaches it first? You really think the US is more trustworthy?
    - solenoid0937 4mo ago
      What are the PRC's values? How are individual freedoms in China? What happens if you criticize the government as a Chinese citizen? Is it a good thing if a government that turns its citizens into red pulp for criticism, or disappears them in the middle of the night, or bans access to most media, is the first to a godlike superintelligence that gives them de-facto control of (and impose their values upon) the whole world? Or is it better if democratic nations get there first? If the latter, which democratic nations are best positioned to get to superintelligence before China?
      - orbital-decay 4mo ago
        Can you substitute PRC/China for Anthropic and try answering your questions?
        solenoid0937 4mo ago
        No company will own superintelligence. Governments will, just like governments own nuclear weapons (developed by companies). So the comparison is with the US, not Anthropic. The US doesn't turn its citizens into a fine red purée for criticizing it. The US doesn't censor most media. It is strictly better for a democratic nation like the US to get to superintelligence before a country that will gladly blend its citizens for criticizing it, and censor anything that dares to challenge its power.
Laurel1234 4mo ago
> All of this is totally understandable if you take the perspective that these people genuinely believe they're building superintelligence. They aren't, they are building LLMs. They aren't even building AGI and they all know it. Hell, even if they came up with AGI, then Anthropic's service model would become slavery so I'm not sure why they'd want to.
- solenoid0937 4mo ago
  > They aren't even building AGI and they all know it. That's a strong claim. Why do you believe they're lying about their beliefs? Have you ever interacted with the safety crowd or people that work at labs? They all seem to have high conviction in my experience.
  - Laurel1234 4mo ago
    > Why do you believe they're lying about their beliefs? Because they lie about everything? They're adding more parameters to LLMs and pushing some more vibecoded slop on top of their harnesses, how do you figure that's gonna bring about AGI. Yeah Mythos has 5T parameters, but when we get to 7 5T it'll definitely become sentient bro just 2.5T more params bro you'll see. Not to mention I still haven't heard a single explanation for why we could possibly want to give our IDEs consciousness.
- nonethewiser 4mo ago
  He overstated it. Trying to protect yourself from being cloned by competitors just makes sense from Anthropic's perspective. It doesnt require a belief that you are building super intelligence. You could be building PracticalBathroomWidget#467.