The idea that AI companies scaremonger to sell models is a silly meme.

Both OpenAI and Anthropic were founded by people who sincerely believed in the risk of out-of-control superintelligence. This is part of a clear historical record that is available for anyone to Google. Whether you agree or not, we have no reason to believe their statements about risks are insincere.

Arbitrary imposition of export controls is also part of the history of frontier tech. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th...

Obviously their statements are insincere, because they are building the bloody things. If they were sincere that AI is like nuclear weapons, then they would be devoting all their cash and energy into lobbying the government to nationalize them and treat AI like nuclear weapons. They would not be attempting to IPO and they for sure would not sell their weapon-like thing to the general public.

“OpenAI's CEO says he's scared of GPT-5”

https://www.techradar.com/ai-platforms-assistants/chatgpt/op...

Marketing or actual fear? We’ve got 5 and 5.5 out now… he compared 5 to the Manhattan project. AI may one day be an economic Manhattan project but GPT 5 wasn’t it.

It’s a meme because they overdo it.

People don't get that big labs actively want government regulation, not because they are genuinely concerned about AI misalignment. But because it is the 101 in how to achieve and crystalize oligopoly. What they want is "only the government and the big guys can work on AI", for the rest of us it would be illegal.

> Both OpenAI and Anthropic were founded by people who sincerely believed in the risk of out-of-control superintelligence.

They don't. LLMs can never become out-of-control superintelligence and everyone working on LLMs knows this (with a few eccentric exceptions).

> OpenAI and Anthropic were founded by people who sincerely believed in the risk of out-of-control superintelligence

Why would they sell there services to Palantir and/or to the military then?

> Whether you agree or not, we have no reason to believe their statements about risks are insincere.

I'd say their pecuniary interest is a reason one might plausibly doubt their sincerity, as are their continued efforts to build and sell access to the tools.

Not at all. The writing is on the wall, and they want you to be locked into paying absurd subscription rates for neutered models while they internally use all of that money to run the unrestricted models to clone all of our businesses and swallow the economy. It really does not take a genius to see the long term play by Anthropic. They're a scummy company and have done everything in their power to lead to a scenario like this, but this isn't the exact scenario they bargained for because it affects their own employees and big foreign buyers. Instead, they'd rather have all of the decision making power themselves.

Of all the frontier labs, Anthropic has been the most creative in its marketing. I really, really don't put it beyond them for this to be one big crazy stunt.

Besides, when has the US government been known to do things like this proactively? The phone call came from inside the house.

> we have no reason to believe their statements about risks are insincere

GPT-2 was too dangerous to be released.

We can argue about sincerity, but I don't think we can argue about utter historical incompetence in assessing the risks. It's one or the other.

Either way the evidence seems to indicate we should not listen to AI companies about the risks of AI. Which is not to say that there aren't risks, just that the dealer is the least credible review.

> Both OpenAI and Anthropic were founded by people who sincerely believed in the risk of out-of-control superintelligence.

Ironic then, that both companies are in an out-of-control race to create a superintelligence.

> The idea that AI companies scaremonger to sell models is a silly meme.

> Both OpenAI and Anthropic were founded by people who sincerely believed in the risk of out-of-control superintelligence.

This is not a contradiction.

These things can all be true:

1. That they were afraid of ASI

2. That they continue to be afraid of ASI

3. That they recognize that LLMs aren't in fact a path to ASI

4. That the current models aren't the existential danger they'd have us believe

5. That they're claiming they are because it makes for good marketing

OpenAI was, but didn't all those people then leave for Anthropic?

> Both OpenAI and Anthropic were founded by people who sincerely believed in the risk of out-of-control superintelligence

this means nothing

> Whether you agree or not, we have no reason to believe their statements about risks are insincere.

If you want to be taken seriously, provide data, proof, so that any outside observer can independently come to the same conclusion instead of taking your word for it. Asking people to trust you for [reasons?] and that you somehow for some reason are right and the other is wrong regardless of if they agree or not. This is the imposition of a viewpoint instead of winning your case, which is not a sensible point of view, and definitely not how you influence opinions.

No reason except what comes from a bit of critical thinking.

What do they stand to gain by fearmongering their models as powerful threats? Clout, funding, fanfare, discussion, limelight, funding, funding, stronger IPO, valuation, funding.

What cybersecurity threshold was crossed by mythos that wasn't already crossed by 4.8/5.5? Crickets from 99% of those who have had access.

Have they pulled the same stunts multiple times before with previous models? Check.

You're blind if you dont think that greed and marketing are behind most things you see and hear about when gigantic corporations are involved.

I don't think anthropic or OAI are evil, but its clear both have contracts/connections with Dod and/or Palantir. Both are powered largely by greed still. If you actually want an example of these sincere founders you think OAI/anthropic are run by... look at Ilya at SSI or something. Please open your eyes and stop spreading your opinions on things you clearly have no clue about.

I wish I were this naive.

How do you know what the founders sincerely believe?

Ah yes we are being told to believe in sincerity of people running trillion dollar corporations.

what a profoundly unaware comment

they are more than happy to build the things for themselves

it is all two-faced behavior of the exact kind of manipulators that crave power

Yes we do. Dario said GPT2 is too dangerous to release. He’s dishonest since that’s obviously not true. This theater is about holding onto power and control. And about limiting competition.

Sincerity does not determine whether an individual is scaremongering.

The clear historical record seems to indicate we've got a bunch of pathological liars trying to automate pathological lying.

It can be both.

The amount of self-confidence and belief it takes to get a company through the funding rounds and burn through borrowed money to rise to the top requires an absurd amount of self-delusion.

It's not. I got articles this year in my feed citing heads of OpenAI and Anthropic about the threat of AI and how they're addressing it.

You're saying "this is normal" without making an argument that it's sensible.

>> Both OpenAI and Anthropic were founded by people who sincerely believed in the risk of out-of-control superintelligence.

Oh please. Do people really believe this or shit like "Don't do evil". Companies get founded by all kind of people and ideals. They all go out the window quickly.

Why are they both rushing to IPO now then?

yes, yes, and Apple forbids sideloading because they're worried about grannies installing malware.

Look into the history of Sam Altman and his ventures. He sincerely only believes in lying about his companies to investors like he did with Loopt.

He is not even a researcher or an engineer.

And Dario broke up with OpenAI and founded Anthropic because he didn't like Sam's and OpenAI's vision.

"founded by people who believe..." is doing a lot of work and it is hard to believe that in ernest given the sketchy past of the same people.

Most original higher up people who cared about safety and allignment in OpenAI have left.

> we have no reason to believe their statements about risks are insincere

Why? Because they said it a few times? Then if they know the risk, why do they still making it? Comes out the "some one will do it eventually, better be us 'good' people to do it first" talking point?

See? It is a marketing strategy after all. These all talks, it's all to fit themselves into the "'good' people" narrative. It's a centuries old strategy to shield it's user from responsibilities while luring the support from the stupid.

However, the most harmful damage, which is mass layoffs, is already partially done. This could really kill, a massive genocide even, by making people jobless and potentially incomeless. And it is shown that these tech CEOs, they don't care any bit of that beyond the point "I've already told you so".

I mean this earnestly: is this copy?

[dead]

There is a huge difference between the company founder saying something like that and the us government saying so.

"Our product is so good the US had to make it illegal for foreigners" is a hell of a marketing slogan.