4 ms·
I genuinely think Dario is a well intentioned, intelligent dude, but I think him and Anthropic have a huge PR problem and are really out of touch with how they'
by mindwok 2mo ago
I genuinely think Dario is a well intentioned, intelligent dude, but I think him and Anthropic have a huge PR problem and are really out of touch with how they're perceived.
Anthropic in particular has developed this almost Orwellian like veil of condescending rhetoric that on the surface suggests they're looking out for you while underneath they're taking actions that suggest they do not trust you, Mr/Mrs Ordinary Person. All the safety rhetoric, never supporting open weight models, the lockdowns on harnesses outside claude code, etc.
Anthropic if you care about public good, do something to empower people. Release an OSS model. Open source Claude Code. Open source some inference tooling or something. Just give people anything except your words.
- written-beyond 2mo agoNo big tech founder CEO ever was or ever will be well intentioned.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 2mo agoThere are probably many CEO tech founders of small companies that are well intentioned, but our economic system ensures that only the most sociopathic among them become CEOs of the big ones.
- cobbzilla 2mo agoOil CEOs are well intentioned. A different kind of well, but, oh well.
- 7373737373 2mo agoAnd maybe don't allow the military to use your AI WHEN YOU CAN'T TELL WHETHER IT WAS INVOLVED IN THE KILLING OF HUNDREDS OF SCHOOL CHILDREN
- yoavm 2mo ago[flagged]
- tsimionescu 2mo agoThere is a huge difference between your product being used for basic military operations like taking notes or getting from A to B, and your products suggesting military operations that kill hundreds of schoolchildren, an obvious and horrific war crime.
- yoavm 2mo agoIt's a mistake. If it was done by an auto-correct mechanism, would we still say "maybe don't sell your word processor to the army if you can't vouch for its auto-correct system!!!"? Besides, "taking notes" can literally be listing targets, and "getting from A to B" can be the road to killing them.
- 7373737373 2mo agoHow intelligent and autonomous does a murderbot have to become before you stop absolving its creator and seller from any responsibility?
- yoavm 2mo agoLLM are not murderbots simply because its a very niche use case. They provide some kind of general intelligence, that many of us use daily to vibe code HTML. If the fact that LLMs are also sometimes used to automate killing then humans should be considered murderbots as well, since few of us engage in the activity of killing (and are autonomous & intelligent). Send the blame to our "creator" then?
- 7373737373 2mo agoYou didn't answer my question
- yoavm 2mo agoSorry of it wasn't clear. I put the blame on the creator/seller of any murderbot, regardless of its autonomous or intelligence levels. I disagree that what were talking about, Claude, is a murderbot or anything close to it.
- perpetualpear 2mo agoI might've been bamboozled, but I recal that happening due to outdated satelite images, not a mistake of the AI. Thus, a human would've likely made the same mistake.
- mrhottakes 2mo ago> Thus, a human would've likely made the same mistake. The AI industry and all of its sycophants in the Trump administration are working very hard to make you believe this.
- noahbp 2mo agoThey had a near-monopoly on AI-usage by the US military, then had a very public fallout because they refused to allow it to be used for autonomous weapons and mass-surveillance which their main competitor (OpenAI) publicly undermined by immediately signing an unlimited-use agreement, and now they also get flack for this incident they had no control over, because the US military decided to smear them after this fallout?
- malfist 2mo agoShould we not judge them by their actions? They selected the children's school as a target. Anything else is irrelevant
- q8zd3 2mo agocontext?
- 7373737373 2mo agohttps://www.reuters.com/world/us-says-it-wouldnt-deliberately-target-school-after-iran-said-over-160-killed-2026-03-02/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us-says-it-wouldnt-deliberatel... https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoniopequenoiv/2026/06/10/anthropic-ceo-we-dont-know-exactly-how-claude-ai-was-used-in-iran-school-strike/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoniopequenoiv/2026/06/10/ant... https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2026/03/04/anthropic-ai-iran-campaign/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2026/03/04/anthrop...
- tornikeo 2mo ago> I genuinely think Dario is a well intentioned, intelligent dude, but I think him and Anthropic have a huge PR problem Is this what kids call rage bait these days?
- reasonableklout 2mo agoIt's admittedly a bubble, but Anthropic/Dario still have quite a good reputation among AI tech workers. They are seen as principled and willing to speak up about AI safety and societal impacts, even when it affects their bottom line (such as when being declared a supply chain risk by the Pentagon).
- ausbah 2mo agoand how does the public view AI tech workers?
- noosphr 2mo agoOut of all the families of models anthropic by far has the highest chance of extinction level misalignment during a hypothetical hard take-off because it's trained to act like it knows better than the humans trying to use it.
- horsawlarway 2mo agoYeah... Anthropic gives off big "I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that" vibes.
- bpodgursky 2mo agoThis sounds smart until you think about it for ten seconds. If an ASI model is 100% aligned to user intent then you only need one person on earth to prompt "kill everyone" for an extinction-level invent. There's no logical way around this. The model either has to ignore the person at the helm or we have to do a multi-national abort before RSI. Anthropic is trying #1.
- noosphr 2mo agoYou then need another person to say, please don't, and you're safe again.
- jacquesm 2mo ago“Some humans would do anything to see if it was possible to do it. If you put a large switch in some cave somewhere, with a sign on it saying 'End-of-the-World Switch. PLEASE DO NOT TOUCH', the paint wouldn't even have time to dry.” ― Terry Pratchett, Thief of Time
- gunapologist99 2mo agoIf everyone or even multiple competing groups have approx the same level of capability, it mitigates the risk to the group as a whole. We see this in biology all the time.
- ipsod 2mo ago
- typ 2mo ago> give people anything except your words. I feel that everyone in this small AI bubble (compared to the "normies") is busy trying to take advantage of AI to surpass everyone else, while fearing being surpassed by everyone else. Most people assume LLMs are just a tool for making money, an arms race over wealth and social rank. But those like Dario seem to be worried that LLMs could potentially be used as automatic rifles by some dedicated psychopaths. Whether it could be that dangerous, or just an exaggeration, or we should have everyone armed, require licenses to own one, or outright ban them, is debatable. But I can understand his point. All I can say at the moment is that this is more subtle than the superficial conspiracy/black-and-white narrative.
- copemaxxxing 2mo agoI think it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter whether the creator of AI is a god or a devil. It will be hated anyway. Because the reasons outlined in the article, plus many others. Concentration of power, unemployment, rising energy/living costs, stealing of digital artifacts owned by people. I myself acknowledge that AI is useful. But due to the reasons above, I will be anti AI for the most part. Yes, it doesn't matter if AI manages to cure cancer. Due to the reasons above, I will be anti AI. I suspect a lot of other people feel the same way.
- tokioyoyo 2mo agoI don’t even think they have a PR problem, if their revenue numbers are correct. Sure, maybe in the court of public opinion, but time and time again it shows how it can be fixed.
- denverllc 2mo agoRevenue is not profit, their competitors are catching up, and they have a lot of debt.
- tokioyoyo 2mo agoI’m not that sure if their competitors are catching up in terms of revenue and growth. And we’ve seen unprofitability not being an issue for a lot of companies. Markets function in funny days nowadays.
- snarfy 2mo agoI am 100% confident when Dario speaks, Anthropic loses subscriptions.
- lxnn 2mo ago> Anthropic in particular has developed this almost Orwellian like veil of condescending rhetoric that on the surface suggests they're looking out for you while underneath they're taking actions that suggest they do not trust you, Mr/Mrs Ordinary Person. All the safety rhetoric, never supporting open weight models, the lockdowns on harnesses outside claude code, etc. This line of reasoning is really very silly. I can be looking out for my young child by choosing not to put them behind the driving wheel of my car. There are both stupid and malicious people in the world. If you have a tool that you believe may be genuinely dangerous in the hands of the wrong person, it is not the smart thing to do to give the public unrestricted access to that tool. Do you think it would be sensible to give every individual on Earth a nuclear weapon to do whatever they want with?
- breadramen 2mo ago[dead]