upvote
>This is really distracting because the main problem here is that AI is getting too powerful to be just handed out to normal people like us.

We need a Second Amendment for AI: the right to keep and bear strong AI shall not be infringed. This safety handwringing is going to solidify the state's monopolies over its subjec... err citizens.

The state is the farmer, and we are the cows.

reply
"We need a Second Amendment for AI: the right to keep and bear strong AI shall not be infringed."

It is already robustly protected by the first amendment.

If I had legal possession of the fable source repository, etc., and printed it on paper, it would be legal for me to possess and distribute, discuss, annotate, etc.

reply
Safety handwringing?

Mythos found 1000 zero days in a few weeks - if I had asked your thoughts on this a few years ago, I'm sure it would've been "that is a super-weapon".

Plus, scaling laws are impossible to deny: More compute = more intelligence.

AI is going to completely redefine the role of human cognitive ability - if you think this is about "state monopoly", you're really thinking too small.

reply
"Mythos found 1000 zero days in a few weeks - if I had asked your thoughts on this a few years ago, I'm sure it would've been "that is a super-weapon"."

No, my take would have been that a very strong new move had been made in a long-standing, classical arms race.

Since I rather like stable equilibria in areas like this, my thoughts would have been that white hats need to catch up immediately to reestablish the stalemate ... which was probably the course we were on, prior to today.

reply
I want that intelligence in my living room working for me. I do not think Dario, Altman, or the state should get a monopoly on it.
reply
Yes, you've already told us you're the one who wants to make racist poetry.
reply
yeah but they don't want you to and it isn't Dario and sama I've got in mind when I say they.
reply
Ok but you can’t hand wave safety concerns. I agree that they shouldn’t get monopoly over it but what if AI is strong enough to synthesise weapons and help in cyber security?

What’s your answer to it? There are other people who have thought of it and it’s not that simple.

reply
>Ok but you can’t hand wave safety concerns

Sure I can! *waves* Thank goodness we have the First Amendment [here in America] and I can just go to a library to find books with that info anyway.

reply
Yes, I want that 'super weapon' in everyone's hands. Better than the hands of a few. Same thing as literacy. I believe in the power of the do-gooders to overwhelm the do-badders.
reply
This is the worst possible take. Responsible disclosure shouldn't be a thing? Defenders shouldn't have the chance to frontrun?
reply
I disagree.

See above where I frame this as a classical arms race and the equilibria (stalemate) between white/black hats is a very safe and stable place to be.

You and I don't get to choose who the white hats are and those actors could change dramatically as US administrations change, etc.

It's better to rapidly reestablish a new stalemate ... and I say that as someone who has spent the last six months rapidly triaging vulnerabilities and newly discovered attack surface in an attempt to safeguard the livelihoods of everyone who depends on my business.

reply
Americans be like
reply
how dare the government infringe my right to possess privately-owned McNukes
reply
It literally is for marketing dude, Dario loves this shit and it's been his modus operandi for years.

You think this is a coincidence that it's happening shortly before Anthropic IPOs?

How many people in the US government (at senior levels) are currently on track to profiting massively from a huge Anthropic IPO? The answer is, most of them. Most of the most powerful CEOs, senators, congressmen, Trump's retinue, are invested in Anthropic through on vehicle or another.

I use AI all the time and Opus 4.8 can't even get the most basic shit right about a very popular videogame released a few years ago. It's not going to steal your baby and eat your wife.

You sound like you have AI psychosis honestly.

reply
it's an explanation, but you have to have tunnel vision to think this is the only explanation.

I think they truly believe what they say when they say it's a very dangerous piece of tech and from their wargamed scenarios they figured they really need to be first or shit properly hits the fan - and I agree. their need for money assuming scaling trend holds is transient if they're first.

reply
bro for crying out loud this is not some marketing stunt
reply