I don't know why you think I'm taking anything literally, cf. my first comment. I understand what a metaphorical arms race is. I don't think that Anthropic can forestall others' AI development by getting there first. It can't be literal destruction. It can't be economic destruction (some actors interested in it aren't motivated by money). What's left? I'm all ears.
replyAs far as naivete, wouldn't it be more naive to take their EA claims at face value, rather than the more realistic assumption that they like money?
> These are private companies, they are not vested with the necessary authority to destroy anything
replyYou're pretty explicitly saying that dominating the competition is not the type of "destruction" necessary to qualify as an arms race.
> As far as naivete, wouldn't it be more naive to take their EA claims at face value, rather than the more realistic assumption that they like money?
Huh? Greed is – quite obviously – the major driving force behind the arms race. That is not a mitigation whatsoever.
> I will charitably assume Anthropic does not intend to literally destroy anyone and merely wants to become an AGI monopoly.
replyCreative destruction is absolutely a thing in the market, but the way things are going it seems more likely that open source models will just destroy everything else as far as most users are concerned. The big proprietary labs will be effectively left with Fable, GPT-Pro and Gemini Deep Research - stuff that by all indications needs very large scale compute to even feasibly run. We'll probably find out that each has its own strengths, weaknesses and viable niches, so there's no reason to expect any of those models to utterly destroy the others. They can all survive as specialty services.
replySure, but:
reply> Whether or not this is actually true is TBD, but I think you're naive to think the frontier labs do not believe this to be true.