5 ms·

The companies are begging to be regulated for this reason and have been doing so for years. HN's response is generally that this is performative for marketing o

The companies are begging to be regulated for this reason and have been doing so for years. HN's response is generally that this is performative for marketing or seeking regulatory capture or haha anthropic you get what you ask for. Maybe the cynics are right, but there's really nothing inconsistent about the naive view here, once you factor in race dynamics and obligations to investors.

vasco 1mo ago
> The companies are begging to be regulated for this reason and have been doing so for years Regulations are rules that you force on a market, but the actors in the market should not be assumed to be all operating against the regulations before they come into play. Said in other words, these companies don't need to wait for regulation to not destroy the world, if that's truly what they think will happen. > inb4 someone else will do it
- deleted 1mo ago
  [deleted]
- owebmaster 1mo ago
  > these companies don't need to wait for regulation to not destroy the world, if that's truly what they think will happen. They believe that if they don't destroy the world someone else will so better be them
  - vasco 1mo ago
    You might want to google what inb4 means, at least you could've put a bit more effort substantiating it.
    - ToValueFunfetti 1mo ago
      If your response to an argument is inb4, you don't get to tell somebody else they're not putting in enough effort to provide substance. Also, I brought up race dynamics before your inb4, so even if anticipation counted as more than a shallow dismissal, you didn't meet that bar. I really don't understand what's happening here lately such that 15-year-old accounts are behaving so poorly. This is the first time you've said 'inb4' in what I can only guess is thousands of comments over a decade and a half. If you don't care about the standards here anymore, why stick around and make things worse for the rest of us? Is there some other draw than quality of conversation? I wrote something earlier to the same effect and wound up deleting it because it let too much frustration through. I am frustrated, but you don't deserve the brunt of that. Sorry if that's still coming through.
      - vasco 1mo ago
        Someone else will do it is the lowest form of justification for any bad behavior. Regarding the rest of your judgement of the quality of the comments that's why we have votes. Some of my comments for this 15 years are downvoted and others upvoted and some are even flagged and it lets me learn what the crowd agrees with and not and I reflect from it and you can see the average to judge for yourself what the crowd thinks of my contributions. I appreciate your answer but it's one person's opinion, as is mine.
        ToValueFunfetti 1mo ago
        This has nothing to do with agreement with the crowd, and it's not a matter of difference of opinion between us. There are guidelines here[1] that are not being met. A conscious effort was made to prevent this site from being an echo chamber and to prevent it from descending into entropy and the approach you describe here directly contradicts this. The crowd is very often wrong. If you are getting downvoted for incorrectness or disagreement, the crowd is definitely wrong. Please don't change your mind over downvotes! That's what the conversation is for. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        vasco 1mo ago
        Mate with all due respect, get bent. Now you really have an example of breaking the rules.
        ToValueFunfetti 1mo ago
        I appreciate the admission. Please try to participate productively in the future.
  - dpark 1mo ago
    Exactly this. “I want to win the market. I would prefer that it be a regulated market, but if not, so be it. I’m still playing to win.”
  - fwipsy 1mo ago
    "We're the good guys because we'll destroy the world a little less."
watwut 1mo ago
> The companies are begging to be regulated for this reason and have been doing so for years They can stop doing a thing they claim should be regulated. You dont need to be regulated and forced to do the thing you consider right, especially when you are the primary one collecting the money to do the bad thing. They could train ai for pro-social purposes, they dont here. They could make it useful for worker, they intentionally try to harm workers. And then pretend "it just happened".
- simianwords 1mo ago
  what a naive comment. these companies have world class alignment researchers. a math Fields medalist is also joining OpenAI as one [1]. > They can stop doing a thing they claim should be regulated. That's not how the world works. there are tradeoffs and we need to learn how to navigate it. not just dismiss it straight up. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Tsimerman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Tsimerman
zmmmmm 1mo ago
Tobacco company says "we are launching a new product that will cause cancer and kill people. It's highly addictive so we expect widespread uptake. We think it is crucial that regulation be introduced for mandatory regular cancer tests so that people can be streamlined into treatment faster when they get sick"
- fwipsy 1mo ago
  I think Anthropic employees think that their product is more like opiates -- highly dangerous, but with a large potential benefit when applied correctly. I don't know what OpenAI employees were thinking, but thankfully it looks like they're thinking again.

vasco 1mo ago

> The companies are begging to be regulated for this reason and have been doing so for years Regulations are rules that you force on a market, but the actors in the market should not be assumed to be all operating against the regulations before they come into play. Said in other words, these companies don't need to wait for regulation to not destroy the world, if that's truly what they think will happen. > inb4 someone else will do it

deleted 1mo ago
[deleted]
owebmaster 1mo ago
> these companies don't need to wait for regulation to not destroy the world, if that's truly what they think will happen. They believe that if they don't destroy the world someone else will so better be them
- vasco 1mo ago
  You might want to google what inb4 means, at least you could've put a bit more effort substantiating it.
  - ToValueFunfetti 1mo ago
    If your response to an argument is inb4, you don't get to tell somebody else they're not putting in enough effort to provide substance. Also, I brought up race dynamics before your inb4, so even if anticipation counted as more than a shallow dismissal, you didn't meet that bar. I really don't understand what's happening here lately such that 15-year-old accounts are behaving so poorly. This is the first time you've said 'inb4' in what I can only guess is thousands of comments over a decade and a half. If you don't care about the standards here anymore, why stick around and make things worse for the rest of us? Is there some other draw than quality of conversation? I wrote something earlier to the same effect and wound up deleting it because it let too much frustration through. I am frustrated, but you don't deserve the brunt of that. Sorry if that's still coming through.
    - vasco 1mo ago
      Someone else will do it is the lowest form of justification for any bad behavior. Regarding the rest of your judgement of the quality of the comments that's why we have votes. Some of my comments for this 15 years are downvoted and others upvoted and some are even flagged and it lets me learn what the crowd agrees with and not and I reflect from it and you can see the average to judge for yourself what the crowd thinks of my contributions. I appreciate your answer but it's one person's opinion, as is mine.
      - ToValueFunfetti 1mo ago
        This has nothing to do with agreement with the crowd, and it's not a matter of difference of opinion between us. There are guidelines here[1] that are not being met. A conscious effort was made to prevent this site from being an echo chamber and to prevent it from descending into entropy and the approach you describe here directly contradicts this. The crowd is very often wrong. If you are getting downvoted for incorrectness or disagreement, the crowd is definitely wrong. Please don't change your mind over downvotes! That's what the conversation is for. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        vasco 1mo ago
        Mate with all due respect, get bent. Now you really have an example of breaking the rules.
        ToValueFunfetti 1mo ago
        I appreciate the admission. Please try to participate productively in the future.
- dpark 1mo ago
  Exactly this. “I want to win the market. I would prefer that it be a regulated market, but if not, so be it. I’m still playing to win.”
- fwipsy 1mo ago
  "We're the good guys because we'll destroy the world a little less."

watwut 1mo ago

> The companies are begging to be regulated for this reason and have been doing so for years They can stop doing a thing they claim should be regulated. You dont need to be regulated and forced to do the thing you consider right, especially when you are the primary one collecting the money to do the bad thing. They could train ai for pro-social purposes, they dont here. They could make it useful for worker, they intentionally try to harm workers. And then pretend "it just happened".

simianwords 1mo ago
what a naive comment. these companies have world class alignment researchers. a math Fields medalist is also joining OpenAI as one [1]. > They can stop doing a thing they claim should be regulated. That's not how the world works. there are tradeoffs and we need to learn how to navigate it. not just dismiss it straight up. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Tsimerman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Tsimerman

zmmmmm 1mo ago

Tobacco company says "we are launching a new product that will cause cancer and kill people. It's highly addictive so we expect widespread uptake. We think it is crucial that regulation be introduced for mandatory regular cancer tests so that people can be streamlined into treatment faster when they get sick"

fwipsy 1mo ago
I think Anthropic employees think that their product is more like opiates -- highly dangerous, but with a large potential benefit when applied correctly. I don't know what OpenAI employees were thinking, but thankfully it looks like they're thinking again.