Remix.run Logo
mweidner 5 hours ago

I fail to see how pursuing recursive self-improvement at full speed is compatible with Anthropic's stated goal of AI Safety. If nukes were not invented yet, would it really be a good idea to build and sell them as fast as possible (in peace time, no less)?

I am not cynical enough to believe that Anthropic's warnings are pure marketing hype. Let's hope that it is instead overconfidence or the result of too much time talking to their own chatbot.

overgard 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The thing about nukes is you can at least make an argument for why it'd be important to be the first country to have them. With AI, you create super intelligence and you're probably just the first one it takes out. There's no reason to think a super intelligence would be totally fine being a slave to apes.

Cynicism with these companies is highly warranted though. It's not doomerism to look at their actions and conclude they're deeply untrustworthy.

robbrown451 35 minutes ago | parent [-]

" There's no reason to think a super intelligence would be totally fine being a slave to apes."

Sure there is. Intelligence doesn't give us our selfish motivations, natural selection does. We have similar motivations to C elegans, that has all of 302 neurons. Stay alive and have sex.

Honeybees don't though. They are about halfway between humans and C elegans when it comes to cognitive power. But they are not selfish because they don't reproduce directly (I'm talking about the worker bees). So they will sting even though it kills them. All their behavior is consistant with this.

gensym 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I am not cynical enough to believe that Anthropic's warnings are pure marketing hype.

Nor am I. I think they believe that AI poses a grave danger, and they are playing the prisoner's dilemma as an unvirtuous actor.

1. If anyone builds strong AI, it may be catastrophically bad.

2. If anyone builds strong AI, it will be better for the builder than for anyone who does not. Either because it won't be catastrophically bad so the builder will get to enjoy all the spoils indefinitely or because it will and at least the builder will be rich for a while.

kurthr 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Maybe we're just misinterpreting the meaning of "AI Safety"?

Maybe they mean the AI needs to be safe from us? Can't have the grubby meat flappers touching the delicate bits!

RobertDeNiro 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Anthropics goal is regulatory capture.

mrob 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

To complete the analogy, it's like nukes, except we don't have the slightest idea how to calculate the odds of it igniting the atmosphere. (And note that in reality, while the Trinity test "ignite the atmosphere" calculations were correct, we failed to correctly calculate the fallout of the Castle Bravo test with lethal consequences).

chasd00 4 hours ago | parent [-]

a better analogy with Castle Bravo is that the yield was 2.5x more than expected due to "unforeseen additional reactions" from the design.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo

lenerdenator 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I am not cynical enough to believe that Anthropic's warnings are pure marketing hype.

It's not cynicism if it's an appraisal of reality that's backed up by evidence.

Remember how social media - that first baby of this current generation of tech entrepreneurs - was supposed to "bring the world together" and "let us express ourselves"? As it turns out there's a lot more money to be made by fostering division to drive engagement and feeding people an endless stream of ads instead of their friends' content. And money is what matters. You can't write down good vibes on a quarterly figures report. You can absolutely write down the number of eyes that your ragebait brought to a product's marketing efforts and the conversion rate to sales.

The same will be done with GenAI. We're being promised "AI Safety" because otherwise this whole thing gets killed dead by anyone who knows about James Cameron's directing career. There's no real enforcement mechanism for AI safety, though. Safety is a good vibe, same as harmony in online communities. You can't measure it. What you can measure is training costs and the cost of mistakes by AI that need to be trained to avoid those mistakes. Since AI generates more output than humans can conceivably QA no matter what your budget is, and since AI is seen by the market as a potential endless font of value, the tradeoff will be made to have AI make some potentially awful decisions while training itself over slowing down and re-appraising what is being done.

There's an almost religious reverence for AI in SV. Not everyone sees it as "making the godhead" but some certainly do. They're not going to moderate themselves too much on this.

mweidner 4 hours ago | parent [-]

The folks I met who were talking about AI Safety in 2018 were certainly sincere, and the two people I knew who later joined Anthropic seem like the type to do it for the greater good instead of money.

I expect that Anthropic will eventually behave as you describe, like any other public corporation. However, my impression is that its current leaders are still more sincere than greedy.

tokioyoyo 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Sorry for nitpicking, but:

> If nukes were not invented yet, would it really be a good idea to build and sell them as fast as possible (in peace time, no less)?

Arguably, yes.

mweidner 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Is the idea to keep the world in balance via MAD? I could see that, though it's a dangerous gamble.

From Richard Rhode's "The Making of the Atomic Bomb", I got the impression that most scientists involved thought they could manage a US or UN monopoly on nukes after the war. General Groves attempted to buy up all of the world's uranium ore. Unfortunately, it is only high grade ore that is rare; many countries have low-grade ore.

tokioyoyo 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Again quite arguable, but this is the real life scenario we’re living in. Nukes have made it hard to impossible for super major powers to go in direct conflict with each other.

folkrav 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Except it's pretty well documented (and this is total conjecture, but if you ask me, there are probably are a bunch of undisclosed cases) to have had a good amount of close calls. With the fire-on-warning stance many powers have, it doesn't take an attack, but just enough of the appearance of it to trigger a response.

dabinat 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I honestly don’t know how Iran can conclude anything after this war other than to go all-in on nukes. The US has proven any deal is worthless if it can just change its mind and renege on it whenever it wants.

Who’s invading North Korea? No-one.

nielsbot 34 minutes ago | parent [-]

Furthermore if Iran had nukes already, the Israel/US bombing of Iran and even the constant bullying of Israel's neighbors by Israel might not have happened.

NewsaHackO 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

No, but in a peace time, it's a lot easier to convince someone not to use nukes than in a war when the party who has nukes has its back against the wall.

wongarsu 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Wouldn't deliberately going from a world without nuclear weapons to a world with MAD involve giving the tech to build nukes to your worst enemy?

If only the US or UN had nukes we would't have MAD. We mostly got here through espionage

IsTom 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

In this world we've had an inocculation event against use of nukes. Two were dropped, people have seen how abhorrent their use is and collectively decided that they shouldn't be used.

If in the WW2 Japan also had nukes (and delivery systems for them) they'd probably have retaliated in kind and US wouldn't let that slide too and it would have continued for some time.

margorczynski 4 hours ago | parent [-]

If WW2 Japan also had nukes the US would never drop those two. That's the whole idea behind MAD. Probably the only thing that stopped an open conflict between the US and USSR was them being nuclear powers and both sides being scared that eventually push comes to shove.

Jtarii 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

With the US showing that it will elect mentally disabled people such as Trump, this doesn't seem such a wise decision.

keybored 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Such a massively valued company. And doubting them is cynicism? It’s rational(ism).

So either they lie or they are AI Zealots. Interesting times.

keybored 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Such a massively valued company. And doubting them is cynicism? It’s rational(ism).

So either they lie or they are AI Zealots. Interesting times.

Edit:

> > and the two people I knew who later joined Anthropic seem like the type to do it for the greater good instead of money.

There are three types of people. Pedestrians, investors, and “I know some of them, they wouldn’t lie”.

parineum 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> I am not cynical enough to believe that Anthropic's warnings are pure marketing hype.

It doesn't really have to be dishonest, he could really believe it. I do believe, however, that it is incredibly wrong and is functioning as marketing hype.