| ▲ | sanderjd 6 hours ago |
| I mean... I'm not even extraordinarily cynical about this stuff, but to me this seems like a totally normal level of corporate gamesmanship? Companies look for and seek to maintain competitive moats. This is not particularly clever, it's a core part of corporate strategy. |
|
| ▲ | nextaccountic 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| It's also highly unethical (for some values of ethics) |
|
| ▲ | tripleee 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| of course, but the safety angle was pushed from day one. I more mean the forethought of how it would play out |
| |
| ▲ | reasonableklout 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Ok but Dario has been thinking about AI Safety since 2016 [1], before even GPT-1. I think the simplest explanation is that the Anthropic folks genuinely believe what they say, it just happens to also help their business a lot. [1]: https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.06565 | | |
| ▲ | mlcrypto an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | That just shows how wrong he's been because there was nothing unsafe about AI in 2016. And the people theorizing about this stuff in the 20th century? I want to see what crazy code they were writing | |
| ▲ | sanderjd 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yeah I think this is right. The best setup is when a true belief aligns with a competitive moat. I definitely believe that (to his credit!) Amodei is a true believer in safety. But I also think it was important for many of the deep pockets investors who have been involved in the company since early on to recognize that this would be a potentially defensible moat. | | |
| ▲ | mkss 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | "True believer in safety" but happily quoting arse wipe Vance? Give me a break... | | |
| ▲ | sanderjd 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | What was the quote? For what it's worth, I do really think that Amodei believes in and cares about safety. But that is not the same as believing that he is entirely altruistic or above the influence of politics. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | sanderjd 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Does this really seem exceedingly clever and hard to foresee to you? To me, it seems like a pretty standard regulatory capture strategy. This doesn't even mean that they're wrong about the risks or that they're lying. But surely all the investors understood this factor in their moat. |
|