> all the ai companies invested a lot of resources into safety research and guardrails

What do you base this on?

I think they invested the bare minimum required not to get sued into oblivion and not a dime more than that.

Anthropic regularly publishes research papers on the subject and details different methods they use to prevent misalignment/jailbreaks/etc. And it's not even about fear of being sued, but needing to deliver some level of resilience and stability for real enterprise use cases. I think there's a pretty clear profit incentive for safer models.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.18837

https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.14093

https://transformer-circuits.pub/2025/introspection/index.ht...

▲

gessha 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Not to be cynical about it BUT a few safety papers a year with proper support is totally within the capabilities of a single PhD student and it costs about 100-150k to fund them through a university. Not saying that’s what Anthropocene does, I’m just saying chump change for those companies.

▲

rrr_oh_man an hour ago | parent [-]

You are very off (unfortunately) about how little PhD students are being paid

	▲	pja an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> You are very off (unfortunately) about how little PhD students are being paid All in costs for a PhD student include university overheads & tuition fees. The total probably doesn't hit $150k but is 2-3x the stipend that the student is receiving. Someone currently working in academia might have current figures to hand.

▲

tovej 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Alternative take: this is all marketing. If you pretend really hard that you're worried about safety, it makes what you're selling seem more powerful.

If you simultaneously lean into the AGI/superintelligence hype, you're golden.