| ▲ | lukewarm707 a day ago | |||||||
i read AI 2027 at the time and thought it was nonsensical. however i was not aware of the conflict of interest running through the philosophy itself, the safety institutes "independently" monitoring ai, and the former public benefit orgs like openai and anthropic creating ai (now de facto fairly evil for profit companies). it explains so much now. it would explain why redwood and METR were chosen and apparently willing to immediately write a whitewash report for openai blaming the agents. it explains why anthropic is infantilising its users, anthropomorphising its product when there is no scientific consensus of llm consciousness, or accepting of outlandish and unreal claims about human extinction when they are lacking in evidence. who knows, it may also explain and fund the recent media blitz by jacob coxon, which has led to the recent virality of ai safety. | ||||||||
| ▲ | jmoggr a day ago | parent [-] | |||||||
sure, yeah, I've seen how the sausage is made on some of this stuff, and its not pretty. However this only claims that they are not good at creating effective and trustworthy orgs, it does not address their claim that it is not possible to crate powerful, aligned, and controllable AI. Both things be true. | ||||||||
| ||||||||