4 ms·

Or you know, stop working on it if its that dangerous? This whole thing of a bunch of employees saying that they are scared of building what they are building,

by calgoo 22d ago

Or you know, stop working on it if its that dangerous? This whole thing of a bunch of employees saying that they are scared of building what they are building, but do it anyway because they are somehow going to make it different? Their model has been used in the planning of mass murdering in war as well as spying on the entire worlds population as well as helping ICE out in the US. They need to stop this BS fearmongering or actually stand up and do something about it. A government regulation is not the answer, especially when its done in a country that is run by a want to be dictator.

int_19h 22d ago
Anthropic specifically is basically saying that they believe it's even more dangerous if someone else gets to AGI before they do, so they have to either stop everyone or not stop themselves. I personally disagree with that take - and, as you note, it's hard to take seriously ethical wrangles from a company that literally sued the government in court to allow their models to be used by Palantir of all people. But if one genuinely believes that it's the robots themselves (rather than the people controlling the robots) that will kill us all, it's not inconsistent.
- the_optimist 21d ago
  It’s a bit of a self-serving argument, don’t you think? And how does that relate to the ask for oligopoly licensing within global democracy? “We must build the nuclear bomb first in order to make sure no one else builds one.” This the most nonsense, disingenuous argument imaginable.
  - forgotone 21d ago
    The people at these companies are dumb as rocks. All “tech workers” are.
  - int_19h 21d ago
    > It’s a bit of a self-serving argument, don’t you think? I would call it more of a self-selecting one. Anthropic is basically hiring people with that mentality. I'm pretty sure that most of them do sincerely believe it, too. I'm skeptical about Dario himself though. The man had an opportunity to show moral backbone, and failed to do so; why should I trust him on that again? > And how does that relate to the ask for oligopoly licensing within global democracy? They are basically saying that they'll stop if everybody else does, which requires some kind of global enforcement mechanism. > “We must build the nuclear bomb first in order to make sure no one else builds one.” This the most nonsense, disingenuous argument imaginable. The difference between nuclear bomb and AGI (as understood by the likes of Anthropic) is that the latter triggers the technological singularity that renders any runner-ups moot. That is, so long as AGI is developed, we're going to get our robot overlords either way, but whoever gets there first gets to define their ethical system. If that is one's perspective, and if one sincerely believes that they are the only ones who can do it right, it's a coherent argument. It's just that the premises are very arrogant. Your analogy with nukes actually works better for the position that AI development needs to be unconstrained because otherwise we'll lose the arms race to China. That is basically a repeat of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Szilard_letter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Szilard_lette.... I honestly don't know where I am on this. Realistically, if AI is indeed a power multiplier - and with all the recent security stuff it's hard to not see it that way - then an arms race feels inevitable, especially given the current worldwide political situation. I could believe in sincere international cooperation on this back in 1990s, but there's way too much saber rattling all around for it to work (and note that this goes both ways, i.e. China can similarly not be certain that US isn't secretly developing more powerful AI even if we do publicly announce a freeze).
- quickthrowman 21d ago
  > Anthropic specifically is basically saying that they believe it's even more dangerous if someone else gets to AGI before they do, so they have to either stop everyone or not stop themselves. That’s how people rationalize being a fentanyl dealer and selling a drug that can kill people, “Someone else will just sell them the drugs, might as well be me.”
  - hobo123 21d ago
    You mean the legalization argument, where people get well-dosed drugs from the doctor or pharmacy instead of mystery powder from the black market.
- folkrav 21d ago
  That's the Cold War nuclear arms race argument, not even disguised. The actual situation we all ended up in is both sides eventually having it, leading to a perpetual state of Mutually Assured Destruction. As you note, it may not be inconsistent with that they say they believe, but it's insanely inconsistent with what they actually are doing.
ben_w 21d ago
> Or you know, stop working on it if its that dangerous? Selection effect. Everyone who thinks "the biggest difference I can make is staying in/joining/founding new AI research lab" does that. Everyone who thinks "the biggest difference I can make is leaving/whistleblowing", does that. Treating both groups as the same by virtue of employer is the goomba fallacy.
- phoghed 21d ago
  They allegedly believe the technology itself is a nuclear weapon tier threat or greater, so why does it matter which lab they are trying to achieve it at?
  - azan_ 21d ago
    I’m really glad us achieved nuclear weapon before nazi germany.
    - folkrav 21d ago
      Then the USSR got it anyway and we're in a perpetual state of Mutually Assured Destruction.
      - hgoel 21d ago
        A perpetual state of mutually assured destruction is much better for the world than only the US possessing the bomb.
  - ben_w 21d ago
    They're trying to make it not be a threat, and are all scared and afraid that their best efforts to make it harmless are not enough. Some are worried by the AI directly bringing doom; others are worried that one of the companies who control the AI will become a dictator; still more think becoming a dictator is a necessary step to safely prevent anyone else making unsafe AI. Painting them all under one brush is like dismissing all animal welfare causes in general, because you disagree with specifically Jainists about a policy of non-violence towards all living creatures being relevant to how you reincarnate: the one is way too specific for the general.

by calgoo 22d ago

int_19h 22d ago

Anthropic specifically is basically saying that they believe it's even more dangerous if someone else gets to AGI before they do, so they have to either stop everyone or not stop themselves. I personally disagree with that take - and, as you note, it's hard to take seriously ethical wrangles from a company that literally sued the government in court to allow their models to be used by Palantir of all people. But if one genuinely believes that it's the robots themselves (rather than the people controlling the robots) that will kill us all, it's not inconsistent.

the_optimist 21d ago
It’s a bit of a self-serving argument, don’t you think? And how does that relate to the ask for oligopoly licensing within global democracy? “We must build the nuclear bomb first in order to make sure no one else builds one.” This the most nonsense, disingenuous argument imaginable.
- forgotone 21d ago
  The people at these companies are dumb as rocks. All “tech workers” are.
- int_19h 21d ago
  > It’s a bit of a self-serving argument, don’t you think? I would call it more of a self-selecting one. Anthropic is basically hiring people with that mentality. I'm pretty sure that most of them do sincerely believe it, too. I'm skeptical about Dario himself though. The man had an opportunity to show moral backbone, and failed to do so; why should I trust him on that again? > And how does that relate to the ask for oligopoly licensing within global democracy? They are basically saying that they'll stop if everybody else does, which requires some kind of global enforcement mechanism. > “We must build the nuclear bomb first in order to make sure no one else builds one.” This the most nonsense, disingenuous argument imaginable. The difference between nuclear bomb and AGI (as understood by the likes of Anthropic) is that the latter triggers the technological singularity that renders any runner-ups moot. That is, so long as AGI is developed, we're going to get our robot overlords either way, but whoever gets there first gets to define their ethical system. If that is one's perspective, and if one sincerely believes that they are the only ones who can do it right, it's a coherent argument. It's just that the premises are very arrogant. Your analogy with nukes actually works better for the position that AI development needs to be unconstrained because otherwise we'll lose the arms race to China. That is basically a repeat of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Szilard_letter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Szilard_lette.... I honestly don't know where I am on this. Realistically, if AI is indeed a power multiplier - and with all the recent security stuff it's hard to not see it that way - then an arms race feels inevitable, especially given the current worldwide political situation. I could believe in sincere international cooperation on this back in 1990s, but there's way too much saber rattling all around for it to work (and note that this goes both ways, i.e. China can similarly not be certain that US isn't secretly developing more powerful AI even if we do publicly announce a freeze).
quickthrowman 21d ago
> Anthropic specifically is basically saying that they believe it's even more dangerous if someone else gets to AGI before they do, so they have to either stop everyone or not stop themselves. That’s how people rationalize being a fentanyl dealer and selling a drug that can kill people, “Someone else will just sell them the drugs, might as well be me.”
- hobo123 21d ago
  You mean the legalization argument, where people get well-dosed drugs from the doctor or pharmacy instead of mystery powder from the black market.
folkrav 21d ago
That's the Cold War nuclear arms race argument, not even disguised. The actual situation we all ended up in is both sides eventually having it, leading to a perpetual state of Mutually Assured Destruction. As you note, it may not be inconsistent with that they say they believe, but it's insanely inconsistent with what they actually are doing.

ben_w 21d ago

> Or you know, stop working on it if its that dangerous? Selection effect. Everyone who thinks "the biggest difference I can make is staying in/joining/founding new AI research lab" does that. Everyone who thinks "the biggest difference I can make is leaving/whistleblowing", does that. Treating both groups as the same by virtue of employer is the goomba fallacy.

phoghed 21d ago
They allegedly believe the technology itself is a nuclear weapon tier threat or greater, so why does it matter which lab they are trying to achieve it at?
- azan_ 21d ago
  I’m really glad us achieved nuclear weapon before nazi germany.
  - folkrav 21d ago
    Then the USSR got it anyway and we're in a perpetual state of Mutually Assured Destruction.
    - hgoel 21d ago
      A perpetual state of mutually assured destruction is much better for the world than only the US possessing the bomb.
- ben_w 21d ago
  They're trying to make it not be a threat, and are all scared and afraid that their best efforts to make it harmless are not enough. Some are worried by the AI directly bringing doom; others are worried that one of the companies who control the AI will become a dictator; still more think becoming a dictator is a necessary step to safely prevent anyone else making unsafe AI. Painting them all under one brush is like dismissing all animal welfare causes in general, because you disagree with specifically Jainists about a policy of non-violence towards all living creatures being relevant to how you reincarnate: the one is way too specific for the general.