This take feels a little like the clergy saying printing presses are dangerous because people will read bad things and spread bad ideas. Turns out they totalky did, but on net it's a small price to pay for widespread literacy.

▲

preg_match 12 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Right, but the widespread literacy took generations to take hold. But, the threat was immediate.

I think, in the long run, of course AI is a boon. But I’m not immortal, and right now it’s a threat to all our livelihoods. We should put ourselves first, and be selfish, while we’re still alive to be selfish.

▲

temporaryacc2 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If the price to pay is total human disempowerment, I think it's worth getting everyone on the same page before we proceed.

	▲	saurik an hour ago \| parent [-]
		This is a steel man of Anthropic's argument, though, and the premise that there could have been a different thing they claimed that would hold up more doesn't and shouldn't defend their position. To the extent to which it comes down to automating and replacing the need for humans or supporting runaway execution that might accidentally kill all the humans, Anthropic routinely measures it, warns of it, and then releases it. Instead, it is only with respect to specific functionality -- much of which is suspiciously beneficial to them, as they internally claim to use AI to improve their own products while also constantly whining about other people using their AI to improve their products -- that they will put a ton of effort into limiting the access or applicability. The day I boot up Claude and ask it to design a website or automate my paperclip factory and it refuses on ethical grounds is the day Anthropic might seem a little less hypocritical.