3 ms·

> Turns out "winning back trust" doesn't have anything to do with any actual concerns people may have re: employment, electricity prices, stock market bubble, i

by mm263 2mo ago

> Turns out "winning back trust" doesn't have anything to do with any actual concerns people may have re: employment, electricity prices, stock market bubble, intellectual property, scams, cybersecurity, environmental issues etc No snark here from my side, just curious about your vision - which concrete actions by Anthropic could improve trust for the concerns you listed?

kilpikaarna 2mo ago
Well, is ”not actively make things worse in the short term?” too ambitious a goal? Considering the vast amount of money, world-class talent and political and industry vonnections Anthropic has access to, it feels a bit unfair to ask me to solve this for them.
- mm263 2mo ago
  I’m not asking you to solve it. Just curious what are the solutions that Anthropic can do right now from your perspective. The concerns you have are pretty well-defined, so the solutions for them must also flow naturally, I think?
nshshbr 2mo ago
You're not asking me, but I want to say that there is nothing Anthropic or any other AI company can do to make me trust them other than to dissolve and give up their ambitions and do something else. Then maybe, after seeing genuine contrition and humility I would trust them to do something else. But likely not. After all they've done, they should accept that a permanent loss of trust is a reasonable consequence. They should lose their influence, position, and money. They should live the rest of their lives as ordinary people, unable to ever again cause mass harm to others, and they should be grateful to be forgiven, and allowed such a humble opportunity. My answer to their proposal for what our society should look like, and what kind of technologies we should use is "no". It's not a trust issue, as in I would not accept the proposal from anyone, even if I did otherwise trust them. And if someone I trusted insistently proposed this, I would stop trusting them. In any case, they don't accept refusal, but try this grotesque and condescending maneuver about "trust", as if I and many others were not really just saying "no". No one who refuses to take "no" for an answer can ever deserve trust. If you are committed to convincing me to go along with your desires, and have no intent of accepting my refusal, you will never deserve trust, and I will never trust you. These companies may have the power to do what they want anyway. But they will never have a clear conscience, or trust and support from me or anyone like me.
- mm263 2mo ago
  You are following the logic to its natural conclusion and I find it infinitely better for the discourse when it’s spelled out like this vs vaguely pointing to a set of other concerns without concrete proposals!
  - nshshbr 2mo ago
    My only concern with respect to discourse is that consent be not treated as a commodity that must be offered for a price, as if we were hostage to cancer and willing to trade anything, including our freedom, dignity, and integrity to be free of it. Thiel et al. have described technological change as a means of forcing unilateral changes on an unwilling public. There is no basis for trust unless there exists a justice system that can appropriately discipline and restrain such people and their coconspirators, and force them to abandon their plans to inflict unwanted conditions on masses of people.

by mm263 2mo ago

kilpikaarna 2mo ago

Well, is ”not actively make things worse in the short term?” too ambitious a goal? Considering the vast amount of money, world-class talent and political and industry vonnections Anthropic has access to, it feels a bit unfair to ask me to solve this for them.

mm263 2mo ago
I’m not asking you to solve it. Just curious what are the solutions that Anthropic can do right now from your perspective. The concerns you have are pretty well-defined, so the solutions for them must also flow naturally, I think?

nshshbr 2mo ago

You're not asking me, but I want to say that there is nothing Anthropic or any other AI company can do to make me trust them other than to dissolve and give up their ambitions and do something else. Then maybe, after seeing genuine contrition and humility I would trust them to do something else. But likely not. After all they've done, they should accept that a permanent loss of trust is a reasonable consequence. They should lose their influence, position, and money. They should live the rest of their lives as ordinary people, unable to ever again cause mass harm to others, and they should be grateful to be forgiven, and allowed such a humble opportunity. My answer to their proposal for what our society should look like, and what kind of technologies we should use is "no". It's not a trust issue, as in I would not accept the proposal from anyone, even if I did otherwise trust them. And if someone I trusted insistently proposed this, I would stop trusting them. In any case, they don't accept refusal, but try this grotesque and condescending maneuver about "trust", as if I and many others were not really just saying "no". No one who refuses to take "no" for an answer can ever deserve trust. If you are committed to convincing me to go along with your desires, and have no intent of accepting my refusal, you will never deserve trust, and I will never trust you. These companies may have the power to do what they want anyway. But they will never have a clear conscience, or trust and support from me or anyone like me.

mm263 2mo ago
You are following the logic to its natural conclusion and I find it infinitely better for the discourse when it’s spelled out like this vs vaguely pointing to a set of other concerns without concrete proposals!
- nshshbr 2mo ago
  My only concern with respect to discourse is that consent be not treated as a commodity that must be offered for a price, as if we were hostage to cancer and willing to trade anything, including our freedom, dignity, and integrity to be free of it. Thiel et al. have described technological change as a means of forcing unilateral changes on an unwilling public. There is no basis for trust unless there exists a justice system that can appropriately discipline and restrain such people and their coconspirators, and force them to abandon their plans to inflict unwanted conditions on masses of people.