undefined

points

[-]

A\ and OpenAI each have their own unique kind of nonsense. I think OpenAI has just been less successful with persuading the rest of the world that they should have all the money in the world.

Anthropic has been surprisingly successful at convincing them that they should control frontier models because they're so dangerous that... only Anthropic can be trusted with them.

(If they're really so dangerous, the right way to deal with them is through a democratic process and taking them out of the hands of a for-profit private entity.)

by waffletower1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

A democratic process, of sorts, elected the current government of the United States. The president even won the popular vote this round. There is no guarantee that AI guidance by democratic process will be an effective counter to corporate autocracy; and more realistically, AI guidance by an autocratic executive branch is the more likely alternative before 2029.

by dofm7 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

To be maximally fair to them, I think it is difficult to be one of the key businesses in a market bubble and not fall victim to this kind of thinking, especially when the continued inflation of the bubble depends on you — lots of people lose their shirts if you don't push hard to be "special".

But as you say, there is a measure of getting high on one's own supply now.

And there's the curious solipsistic energy of Sam Altman whimsically musing in public that it turns out his product is too expensive for people and they complain when you make the price realistic (when it possibly needs to be more expensive for OpenAI to survive).

They seem to believe that the ordinary rules either will not or somehow must not apply to them; it's increasingly bizarre to watch.

Maybe the people around pets.com were this bizarre; we didn't have so much livestreamed interview content to show us.