Can you be more specific on what you mean - how would you prove what anyone believes about something short of reading minds and what would proof look like to you?

Here is Dario writing about AI safety in 2016 [1]. Dario and others in the Anthropic circle have long been associated [2] with the effective altruism movement, which whatever you think about them, they are very concerned about AI existential risks. Ronan Farrow & the New Yorker did a mega deep dive on Sam Altmans history of being dishonest and manipulative, and it credibly reports that Anthropic cofounders left due to not trusting leadership there with safety.

On the other hand we have decades long evidence of Altman and co. being dishonest and employing people like Chris Lehane [3]. I have no affiliation with Anthropic beyond being a user of their products to be clear but it feels like HN is going to end up on the wrong side of this one.

[1]. https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.06565 [2]. https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/53Gc35vDLK2u5nBxP/... [3]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Lehane

Anthropic has called for a coordinated pause: https://www.reuters.com/business/anthropic-says-ai-labs-need...

I characterize the culture of companies based on who works there. Anthropic is founded by people who left OpenAI because it didn't take safety seriously enough. But if AI development has to happen, they want to be the ones leading it. People who do not feel that way, including Anthropic's former head of safety, just don't work there.

Generally, corporations spending billions of dollars on lobbyists is frowned upon. I suspect individual Anthropic employees may make significant donations to AI safety politics and charities, but I don't have proof.

Anthropic's plan may not have great odds, but your proposal is orders of magnitude worse. There are plenty of groups opposing AI. They don't get billions in investment. They don't have a clear way to stop OpenAI or Qwen. They don't get a say in what values or safety measures the top AIs get.

You'd rather they signal their virtue and give up their ability to make a difference.

If they only opposed it they wouldn't have had these billions of dollars? Also I think they genuinely believe they cannot stop it because the Chinese companies are close behind (I also believe it's impossible to stop b/c of strong economic pressures selecting for those who will advance this tech and there are many who can)

The definition of "risk" is such that the existence of it doesn't necessarily make the thing a bad idea to pursue.

The Anthropic people probably also believe that AI has the potential to cure all diseases and reduce material poverty, which is the reason they would probably give for why they're pursuing it.

They then ring the alarm bell to mitigate the risk and increase the chances of the upside scenario coming to fruition.

Or they could take your advice up-thread and just lie to stay out of the government's crosshairs. That's another option.

It seems like a simple solution but if Anthropic was actually to dedicate all its resources this way wouldn't the investors just demand a new CEO?

I think Anthropic believe these risks, but I also think they've spent so much time talking to Claude that they've pretty much lost their minds now. Anthropic have a model welfare department and have numerous times suggested that Claude is conscious and has human like emotions.

Again, how would they do that?

Are they not doing what they should do, which is call for increased regulation? Last I checked, they were not able to create and enact laws.

The genie is out, you cannot stop research in the field across the world.