3 ms·

Do you not think that Amodei, who worked on research about cancer biomarkers at Stanford, knows a thing or two about how to apply AI to the problem? What he is

Do you not think that Amodei, who worked on research about cancer biomarkers at Stanford, knows a thing or two about how to apply AI to the problem? What he is saying makes sense to me. Is it that you don't trust a single word he says and that he lies for financial gain? Or do you think he is wrong and that applying AI to this kind of research cannot possibly produce a breakthrough and lead to a cure?

jacquesm 2mo ago
Not the OP. > Do you not think that Amodei, who worked on research about cancer biomarkers at Stanford, knows a thing or two about how to apply AI to the problem? It certainly shows he is ambitious. > Is it that you don't trust a single word he says and that he lies for financial gain? Yes. > Or do you think he is wrong and that applying AI to this kind of research cannot possibly produce a breakthrough and lead to a cure? It is possible, but both could be true, that's not an exclusive or situation.
- user43928 2mo ago
  And is there any evidence that suggests such flawed character? I am not familiar with Amodei's personal history, but I generally do not assume the worst of people just because they are extremely successful, like many others here seem to do.
  - jacquesm 2mo ago
    I would say without a doubt yes. I've been following all of these characters basically from the time their companies and their names hit the press the first time (professionally) and without exception the 'tech bros' tend to be complete jerks, often on multiple axis. To the point that I'm wondering if success breeds this kind of person or if a particular kind of person is predestined to be successful in this kind of environment. I haven't made up my mind yet.
    - user43928 2mo ago
      If you're so familiar with Amodei's history, why don't you share what concretely you object to?
      - jacquesm 2mo ago
        You mean besides the fear mongering, the clear attempts at regulatory capture, articles like this: https://www.wired.com/story/anthropic-benevolent-artificial-intelligence/ https://www.wired.com/story/anthropic-benevolent-artificial-... and the linked tweet here you need more to convince you that this person may not have our general best interests at heart? Between Musk, Altman, Schmidt, Amodei, Gates and a bunch of others I have a really hard time figuring out who is the least ethical. Probably Musk. But it may well be that the long term damage done by Amodei and Altman is larger. Ask me again in 10 years, if I'm still around.
        oliculipolicula 2mo ago
        Careful here. This comes close to precisely what dang thinks is a bannable offense https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49175827 Fwiw whenever you come close to commiting a "HN capital offence" I am biased against the mods :) The sbf vibes are on the nose. Remember that it was a big deal that sbf bought into Anthropic, and many if not most Anthropic employees are EA, the tribe of people I'd rather call "rationalizists". The main thing they rationalize, is of course themselves taking on power and what sbf made famous as uh the linear approach to risk Between Altman and Amodei, I'd say that Amodei is the more dangerous just because he seems even more "reasonable" to nonjerks. You should ask the mods which one of the two they think are more reasonable. It's clear to lobbyists and politicians --- people familiar with the human jungle that is DC--- that Amodei is weirder, though. I think I have a good metric for who is least ethical. Which one on your list is most unlikely to write good satire (or most likely to write unintentional self-satire?) I'd say its Schmidt, followed by Amodei, and then Musk. See Musk on SNL. I think Gates had some TV appearances where he was reasonably funny, almost self-deprecating.
        2mo ago
  - whimsicalism 2mo ago
    Yes, you're running up against one of the pathologies of HN. I would recommend just disengaging, there's really no convincing..
sumeno 2mo ago
> Is it that you don't trust a single word he says and that he lies for financial gain? You don't become a CEO of a company like Anthropic (or any sufficiently large company) without lying for financial gain

jacquesm 2mo ago

Not the OP. > Do you not think that Amodei, who worked on research about cancer biomarkers at Stanford, knows a thing or two about how to apply AI to the problem? It certainly shows he is ambitious. > Is it that you don't trust a single word he says and that he lies for financial gain? Yes. > Or do you think he is wrong and that applying AI to this kind of research cannot possibly produce a breakthrough and lead to a cure? It is possible, but both could be true, that's not an exclusive or situation.

user43928 2mo ago
And is there any evidence that suggests such flawed character? I am not familiar with Amodei's personal history, but I generally do not assume the worst of people just because they are extremely successful, like many others here seem to do.
- jacquesm 2mo ago
  I would say without a doubt yes. I've been following all of these characters basically from the time their companies and their names hit the press the first time (professionally) and without exception the 'tech bros' tend to be complete jerks, often on multiple axis. To the point that I'm wondering if success breeds this kind of person or if a particular kind of person is predestined to be successful in this kind of environment. I haven't made up my mind yet.
  - user43928 2mo ago
    If you're so familiar with Amodei's history, why don't you share what concretely you object to?
    - jacquesm 2mo ago
      You mean besides the fear mongering, the clear attempts at regulatory capture, articles like this: https://www.wired.com/story/anthropic-benevolent-artificial-intelligence/ https://www.wired.com/story/anthropic-benevolent-artificial-... and the linked tweet here you need more to convince you that this person may not have our general best interests at heart? Between Musk, Altman, Schmidt, Amodei, Gates and a bunch of others I have a really hard time figuring out who is the least ethical. Probably Musk. But it may well be that the long term damage done by Amodei and Altman is larger. Ask me again in 10 years, if I'm still around.
      - oliculipolicula 2mo ago
        Careful here. This comes close to precisely what dang thinks is a bannable offense https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49175827 Fwiw whenever you come close to commiting a "HN capital offence" I am biased against the mods :) The sbf vibes are on the nose. Remember that it was a big deal that sbf bought into Anthropic, and many if not most Anthropic employees are EA, the tribe of people I'd rather call "rationalizists". The main thing they rationalize, is of course themselves taking on power and what sbf made famous as uh the linear approach to risk Between Altman and Amodei, I'd say that Amodei is the more dangerous just because he seems even more "reasonable" to nonjerks. You should ask the mods which one of the two they think are more reasonable. It's clear to lobbyists and politicians --- people familiar with the human jungle that is DC--- that Amodei is weirder, though. I think I have a good metric for who is least ethical. Which one on your list is most unlikely to write good satire (or most likely to write unintentional self-satire?) I'd say its Schmidt, followed by Amodei, and then Musk. See Musk on SNL. I think Gates had some TV appearances where he was reasonably funny, almost self-deprecating.
        2mo ago
- whimsicalism 2mo ago
  Yes, you're running up against one of the pathologies of HN. I would recommend just disengaging, there's really no convincing..

sumeno 2mo ago

> Is it that you don't trust a single word he says and that he lies for financial gain? You don't become a CEO of a company like Anthropic (or any sufficiently large company) without lying for financial gain