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.