6 ms·

It reads like “AI is dangerous, only we should be allowed to make money from it”

encyclopedism 4d ago
Exactly He doesn't need anyones permission to do so, go ahead no one is stopping you! If you feel so strongly about it, lead by example. Perhaps others will follow, maybe even China. Regardless backup your sentiment with actions!
- GeneralMayhem 4d ago
  There is a specific, unilateral action that he is taking described in the article. And the "why are they developing AI if they think it's so dangerous" argument is neither new nor persuasive. They're developing it because (1) they think the potential benefits are as great as the potential risks, and they know that if they aren't one of the actors on the frontier (2) they won't be able to propose meaningful solutions and (3) their opinions won't be taken seriously. Amodei is in rooms with powerful people to propose these things because Anthropic is successfully developing frontier models. The heads of various NGOs and advocacy groups that are concerned with AI safety but not themselves working on those systems are... nowhere, writing pamphlets and blogs that not you nor I nor anyone in Congress will ever read.
  - encyclopedism 3d ago
    I'll leave this here: https://x.com/DavidSacks/status/2098973625252708460 https://x.com/DavidSacks/status/2098973625252708460
    - reasonableklout 3d ago
      I mean, he is right that they can and should unilaterally slow down, but doesn't it also make sense for the government to create the regulations that will make this easier to do in a trustless way? The whole point of the Pacing the Frontier letter was that employees at both OpenAI and Anthropic are extremely aware of the risks but realize that they are locked in a competitive battle for survival between 2 companies that don't trust each other enough to voluntarily pause, while any sort of coordination out in the open might be against antitrust laws.
homieg33 4d ago
To me it reads like whoever can solve alignment should make money.

Exactly He doesn't need anyones permission to do so, go ahead no one is stopping you! If you feel so strongly about it, lead by example. Perhaps others will follow, maybe even China. Regardless backup your sentiment with actions!

GeneralMayhem 4d ago
There is a specific, unilateral action that he is taking described in the article. And the "why are they developing AI if they think it's so dangerous" argument is neither new nor persuasive. They're developing it because (1) they think the potential benefits are as great as the potential risks, and they know that if they aren't one of the actors on the frontier (2) they won't be able to propose meaningful solutions and (3) their opinions won't be taken seriously. Amodei is in rooms with powerful people to propose these things because Anthropic is successfully developing frontier models. The heads of various NGOs and advocacy groups that are concerned with AI safety but not themselves working on those systems are... nowhere, writing pamphlets and blogs that not you nor I nor anyone in Congress will ever read.
- encyclopedism 3d ago
  I'll leave this here: https://x.com/DavidSacks/status/2098973625252708460 https://x.com/DavidSacks/status/2098973625252708460
  - reasonableklout 3d ago
    I mean, he is right that they can and should unilaterally slow down, but doesn't it also make sense for the government to create the regulations that will make this easier to do in a trustless way? The whole point of the Pacing the Frontier letter was that employees at both OpenAI and Anthropic are extremely aware of the risks but realize that they are locked in a competitive battle for survival between 2 companies that don't trust each other enough to voluntarily pause, while any sort of coordination out in the open might be against antitrust laws.

homieg33 4d ago

To me it reads like whoever can solve alignment should make money.