I genuinely think Dario is a well intentioned, intelligent dude, but I think him and Anthropic have a huge PR problem and are really out of touch with how they're perceived.

Anthropic in particular has developed this almost Orwellian like veil of condescending rhetoric that on the surface suggests they're looking out for you while underneath they're taking actions that suggest they do not trust you, Mr/Mrs Ordinary Person. All the safety rhetoric, never supporting open weight models, the lockdowns on harnesses outside claude code, etc.

Anthropic if you care about public good, do something to empower people. Release an OSS model. Open source Claude Code. Open source some inference tooling or something. Just give people anything except your words.

▲

tornikeo an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> I genuinely think Dario is a well intentioned, intelligent dude, but I think him and Anthropic have a huge PR problem

Is this what kids call rage bait these days?

▲

noosphr 39 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Out of all the families of models anthropic by far has the highest chance of extncion level misalignment during a hypothetical hard take-off because it's trained to act like it knows better than the humans trying to use it.

▲

written-beyond an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

No big tech founder CEO ever was or ever will be well intentioned.

▲

7373737373 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

And maybe don't allow the military to use your AI WHEN YOU CAN'T TELL WHETHER IT WAS INVOLVED IN THE KILLING OF HUNDREDS OF SCHOOL CHILDREN

▲

perpetualpear 34 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I might've been bamboozled, but I recal that happening due to outdated satelite images, not a mistake of the AI. Thus, a human would've likely made the same mistake.

▲

yoavm an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Sorry but this sounds like such a populist claim. They probably also write their war plans on Microsoft Word, and drive Fords to the office! Not to mention the simple fact that there are no wars without mistakes. I'm not justifying this specific war, but as a service provider you do not get to approve or reject specific operations.

▲

tsimionescu 40 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

There is a huge difference between your product being used for basic military operations like taking notes or getting from A to B, and your products suggesting military operations that kill hundreds of schoolchildren, an obvious and horrific war crime.

	▲	yoavm 31 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		It's a mistake. If it was done by an auto-correct mechanism, would we still say "maybe don't sell your word processor to the army if you can't vouch for its auto-correct system!!!"? Besides, "taking notes" can literally be listing targets, and "getting from A to B" can be the road to killing them.

▲

7373737373 38 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Thou shalt not kill, that's all there is to it really

If you provide tools that help an organization kill easier, and possibly lazily rely on your inaccurate tools' judgment, and you do not care about the outcomes of these tools' uses, that's on your soul, too.

Yes, causality and attribution are hard sometimes, but it may have been that without it, hundreds of humans would be alive right now, and he doesn't even know. Maybe he should talk to the kids' parents about what alignment means.

	▲	yoavm 27 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Ah, I didn't realize we're having a religous discussion. If all there is to it is "thou shalt not kill" then I guess that according to your POV he shouldn't have sold to the military even if the system was only suggesting "valid" targets.