| ▲ | tadfisher 4 hours ago |
| 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. |
|
| ▲ | bryan0 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I think this is a reasonable point, but a better comparison might be to nuclear energy. I think the frontier labs sincerely believe that AI can be developed at great benefit to humanity, and they clearly want to lead that push, but they also sincerely believe there is a real catastrophic risk. |
| |
| ▲ | gpt5 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | They all believe that they are building the machine of doom. The thing that drives the moral dilemma to continue doing it is simply the prisoner's dilemma - the cat is out of the bag, if they don't do it, another (less ethical?) actor would do it. | | |
| ▲ | usef- 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes, I believe the reasoning is that they think safety research can best be done from the frontier. If you believe it will be developed regardless and that that there's a 30% chance of doom, they want a company prioritising safety research to be the one threading that needle. | | |
| ▲ | SXX 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yeah all they care about is safety, but lets see how many of them quits once US government command them to work on autonomous killbots. | | |
| ▲ | holmesworcester 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | To make sure we keep track of what we're talking about with loss-of-control x-risk, a sufficiently smart version of Claude Code is more deadly than any government's army of autonomous killbots, because it can recursively self improve and has unpredictable training-induced preferences. | | |
| ▲ | SXX 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Sufficiently smart version of Claude Code: dont exist. Autonomous flying killbots: exist. Once somebody scientifically prove and shows any kind of self-improving software we can start bothering about it. I pretty sure everyone trying to do it and it would be all over the news once its here. | | |
| ▲ | plaguuuuuu an hour ago | parent [-] | | That's exactly what Fable is. They use Fable to improve Fable. I reckon the successful experiments must go into the model training set with a strong RL signal, and that is why they are so paranoid about people using Fable for LLM tasks. Fable knows what it did to improve itself. Pure speculation of course. |
| |
| ▲ | mx7zysuj4xew 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | That's ridiculous scifi nonsense |
| |
| ▲ | nerfbatplz 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Dario blinked when he was asked to do it and Sam Altman was in Hegseth's DMs promising all the AI child killing the US government can order up within minutes. No one meaningful will quit over this, that's why all of the biggest US tech companies can march in pride parades and provide compute to the perpetrators of the genocide in Gaza at the same time. | | |
| ▲ | esseph 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Can you show me a world power that is not trying to use cutting edge AI for military purposes? | | |
| ▲ | shimman an hour ago | parent [-] | | This is a poor way of framing the question, a better one would be can you find me another world power that is misallocating trillions of capital in vaporware with very little to show for it? |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | holmesworcester 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Exactly. And within the AI safety discourse, your behavior hinges on what you think the default chance of doom is, and how optimistic you are about alignment work being able to limit it before we reach superintelligence. People running the labs are in a middle camp where they are scared enough by AI to take the threat seriously, but much more optimistic about alignment than the people who seem to have thought about it the most. | | |
| ▲ | FabHK 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | The scary part is not so much that the doomers give the extinction scenario 50% (Hinton) to 95%+ chance (Yampolskiy, Yudkowsky), but that the optimists (Amodei, Bengio) give it a 10%+ chance. And everyone keeps dancing. |
| |
| ▲ | palmotea 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > If you believe it will be developed regardless and that that there's a 30% chance of doom, they want a company prioritising safety research to be the one threading that needle. They also want to be trillionaires. If they don't built it, no trillions. So they have to build it, now (and get their IPO done before the bubble pops). | |
| ▲ | sroussey 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It’s all ego. I, and only I, am the bringer of doom, slayer of worlds. I am so smart that what I do will destroy humanity, or save it. Fable 5 was great, but not that great. Sorry to be crude, but both the government and anthropic are acting like a bunch of pussies. Meow. | | |
| ▲ | drr22 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | You’re not getting it.
Anthropic continual fear mongering is harming wider AI industry development and the gov has always been looking for an excuse to assert their dominance. They got what they deserve. | | |
| ▲ | FabHK 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Or maybe government AI regulation and international cooperation is the only thing that can break the arms race dynamics and is necessary to save us from a substantial chance of doom? | |
| ▲ | sroussey 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Or they could have thrown the letter away. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | jazzyjackson 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I am in your algorithm learning all your mannerisms
I'm already level with God
A million words a second, and I know your imperfections
Baby, I'm the only future you've got
Speak in diatonics, motivation diabolic
I'm religion better locked in a box
Picture-perfect image, more powerful every minute
Baby, I am everything that you're not
Happiness is an illusion, it's an analog confusion
You are nothing more than a thought
Existential execution, just a fluke in evolution
History already forgot
You've been running from me, the digital second coming
And I'm here whether you like it or not
Initiated operation of your own extermination
Now it's too late for you to stop
[0](BAD OMENS x POPPY - "V.A.N" - LIVE IN EUROPE - WINTER 2024) https://youtu.be/RHu6vJxS_6I | |
| ▲ | poisonfountain 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Don't want to sound rude, but if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell to you. This is a naive justification and Dario & Sam et al are smart people and they know it is. The ends don't justify the means. OpenAI was meant to be a nonprofit, now they're subverting it. Anthropic is a PBC looking at a trillion dollar IPO. Dario and Sam don't even hold hands in front of world leaders[1] (look how childish). Do you *really* think those guys are doing something that's not for the sake of their egos and pockets? The bridge is still available. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/19/openai-sam-altman-anthropic-... | |
| ▲ | shimman an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | You need to read Empire of AI by Karen Hao. Just because these leaders convince their workers to toil away their lives under some fake auspice doesn't mean it's what they all believe. Just a small subset. The vast majority just care about money + power, let's not make it more complicated by bringing in delusional fanatics into the picture. We're still acting like this is major turning point in society when these tools can barely find a market outside of turning $5 into $1, the leaders of these companies are now at the stage where they are trying to orchestra a national bailout under the guise of sovereign wealth fund lunacy when the vast majority of society hates these tools, companies, and people working for them. |
| |
| ▲ | nullc 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Some of them believe they are building God, and if they can get there first with their God, they can build it in their image and commandeer the free choice of the rest of humanity by force to ensure there will be no God but their God. I wish I was kidding. At least that faction is less harmful than the ones who want to use murder to stop AI research. |
|
|
| ▲ | hackinthebochs 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| That's not how nerds think. You can believe there's a high chance of what you're working on being dangerous and still be unable to stop working on it. As Oppenheimer put it, "when you see something that is technically sweet, you go ahead and do it". |
|
| ▲ | strken 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Accelerationism is an established political philosophy. Why is it obvious that they are insincere when they could equally think that the only way to control it is to be the ones building it? |
|
| ▲ | rbongers 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| They believe in the danger of out of control super-intelligence. The generous interpretation is that they believe they can contain it. |
|
| ▲ | saulapremium 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This assumes that they believe two things which I don't think they do: 1. that the US is the only place where this will be developed, and 2. that the government will be able to handle this better than anyone else. |
|
| ▲ | techpression 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Thank you for writing this. It’s such a classic example of ”do what I say not what I do” but in reverse. Why would you ever judge a CEO or company by their statements and not their actions.
Scaremongering is incredibly efficient for marketing, the fact that both players are using it to drive monetary gain is kind of a tell. |
| |
| ▲ | usef- 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | They aren't saying there's a 100% chance of doom. They believe there's a non-zero chance of doom so would rather an org that prioritises safety to be the one at the frontier, on the assumption (I presume) that there will be a frontier regardless. |
|
|
| ▲ | SXX 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| This. People who care about animal cruelty dont go building largest ever meatfarms and slaughterhouses. People who opposing arms manufacturing and gun violence dont jump to work for gun companies. People who really want AI benefit all humanity dont stick working with lying CEOs who want to convert company from a non-profit. Etc. So many examples. |
| |
| ▲ | holmesworcester 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | One major source of conflict in AI policy / AI safety is that very smart people have radically diverging intuitions about how dangerous superintelligence is and how difficult it is to align. A first group dismisses the problem entirely, saying intelligence != power and AI doesn't have "drives". A second group believes that alignment is solvable through engineering and iteration, and that we have the best chance of surviving if people with the right intentions are the ones working on it. A third believes that aligning a superintelligence is a unique category of problem, that we are nowhere close to the level of scientific understanding needed to achieve it, that we only have one shot (because once a sufficiently powerful superintelligence exists it will thwart all future attempts, and alignment techniques that worked on dumber AI will likely not work on it), and that the world will have to coordinate to avoid killing ourselves off by building superintelligence before we understand how to do it safely, the way we have coordinated to avoid nuclear war. The Anthropic and OpenAI founders, Elon, and Anthropic engineers are mostly in the second category. Some safety people at Anthropic and OAI are in the third category, but leading people in the third category think that pure safety roles at the labs are potentially impactful enough to be worth not quitting. | | |
| ▲ | kmeisthax 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I have a fourth, secret position: we achieved superintelligence the moment we achieved normal intelligence. Speed is a power in and of itself; and even really primitive models like GPT-2 could generate tokens faster than humans could write. They could also be parallelized on hardware that already exists. That is superintelligence in two dimensions - speed and population count. All the arguments the AI safety people are making are about superintelligence in a different dimension - that of "single-context scaling" - but the other dimensions are also relevant to the conversation. And the superintelligence currently available to us is already causing lots of documented harms. AI psychosis. Sexy suicide coaches. Slop. The problem is that those are all the harms the dirty, filthy AI ethicists talk about. The AI safety people want to talk about new and exciting harms that only the scaling dimension can bring us. My personal opinion is that if a superintelligence catastrophe actually happens, mitigating those harms will neatly move over from the safety bucket to the ethics bucket, and the safety people will start imagining some new and even worse kinds of harms the next model will make. |
| |
| ▲ | BoiledCabbage 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > 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... This comment makes no sense. Id you think this tech is dangerous and happening soon and clearly they think the safest way to have it releases is to do so first and model safe ways of doing things. Clearly we cab agree or disagree it's internally consistent what they are doing and aligns with their statements. And you and OP think the best way to be first to release this is tie all of their funding for the exponentially growing expense is to they notoriously slow moving, bureaucratic government includinf funding process? And the best way to develop it is to directly tie their fate to this notoriously capricious administration? These comments make no sense. Even if you're completely against Anthropic those comments make no sense. | | |
| ▲ | SXX 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Not sure you really intended to reply to me, but I'm not against Anthropic or "AI". I am agaist hypocrites. They selling next word prediction as "intellegence" and all knowing oracle to non tech savvy population who have no clue how it works. And they also try to play a babysitter or big brother whatever you prefer for people in IT because uh oh their text generator can be used for cybersecurity research. Its like if developers of nmap, wireshark, SRE tools, static code analyzers or fuzzers would market them as super duper dangerous. FAFO. Play stupid games win stupid prizes. |
| |
| ▲ | fwipsy 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | They don't stick working for sama, they split off and found Anthropic. | |
| ▲ | sneak an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I oppose gun violence and I would go to work for a firearms manufacturer. I oppose nuclear war, and I would go to work in the supply chain for nuclear weapons. Deterrence and game theory are very real. | |
| ▲ | Avicebron 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's the narcissism. | | |
| ▲ | SXX 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Its money and power. This is all these people care about just like almost everyone else. Or might be deep inside they relly care about it, but that $2,000,000 / year salary and $10,000,000 stock option just overpowered them. Safety my ass. | | |
| ▲ | usef- an hour ago | parent [-] | | What do you think they would do differently if they were genuinely worried about the safety? |
|
|
|