upvote

points

by MangoCoffee17 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby EMIRELADERO17 hours ago|
next
[-]
You are right to feel that way about the frontier labs, especially Anthropic. From https://stratechery.com/2026/anthropics-safety-superpower/

> "Anthropic believes that they are the ones who should have final say over how Anthropic is used; given that they think only they should be developing leading edge AI, they by extension think that only they should have final say over AI generally. When you further combine this realization with the company’s pronouncements about AI’s ability to conduct all economic activity, you realize that Anthropic’s leadership effectively wants to have power over everything and everyone."

reply
upvoteby usef-17 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
To be fair, we're simultaneously mocking anthropic for believing in safety so much and also for them thinking they're the only ones that care enough about it. It's true that no one else seems to care as much. Judging by reactions from everyone, all their safety talk is very bad PR.
reply
upvoteby red_green_yell16 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
The criticism isn't that they believe in safety too much. It's that they patently using safety as a red herring with the actual goal of regulating away competition that they know the cannot beat.
reply
upvoteby usef-16 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
The people involved have been talking about safety long before they had any users or a company.

"Concrete Problems in AI Safety" by Dario and another founder was published 2016, anthropic was founded 2021. Among a bunch of other examples, including other founders.

If safety is seen as a joke now, it was really seen as a joke back then. The reason they keep shooting themselves in the foot with bad PR is because they truly believe in risks.

reply
upvoteby anon3738399 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I’m sorry, but this do-gooder concept doesn’t jibe with their other actions. For example, swindling their business partners (such as Figma). Filing an unnecessary trademark lawsuit against a customer whose brand predates Anthropic.

And for safety? Oh yeah, they literally sell the removal of guardrails in exchange for minimum spend commitments.

reply
upvoteby 2 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
deleted
reply
upvoteby senordevnyc5 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
For example, swindling their business partners (such as Figma). Filing an unnecessary trademark lawsuit against a customer whose brand predates Anthropic.

Completely unrelated to AI safety.

they literally sell the removal of guardrails in exchange for minimum spend commitments

It seems blindingly obvious to me that you'd want to let trusted organizations use the models defensively, which means without guardrails, and that you'd probably gate that behind some kind of enterprise sales process, for multiple reasons.

Honestly, it just seems like you have an axe to grind and aren't really particularly knowledgeable (or curious) about AI safety.

reply
upvoteby t4356215 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
What they believe now or care about is fundamentally not very relevant: allowing them a monopoly would be a big mistake. Google was supposed to do no evil and it probably started that way but nothing guarantees the future other than having alternatives.
reply
upvoteby usef-17 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
If there are genuine society risks in a tech I don't want to discourage CEOs from talking about them. I feel like we've spent decades talking about how evil chemical companies (etc.) were about covering up issues in the 20th century. But yes, that's different to being a reason to ban external models.
reply
upvoteby dmix17 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
Sam drank the "superintelligence" kool aid early on and said 30-40% of jobs could be impacted by AI, but recently admitted he was wrong

> “My scorecard, at the highest level, would be we’ve been roughly right on technological predictions and pretty wrong on the social and economic implications” https://www.cxtoday.com/ai-automation-in-cx/sam-altman-softe...

I agree re: Dario quietly pushing for government control. He also said LLMs would replace a lot of entry-level information jobs, doubling the unemployment rate from 4-5% to 10%.

Yale did a study recently showing little impact on employment in high-AI exposed jobs https://budgetlab.yale.edu/research/ai-probably-not-yet-reas...

reply
upvoteby conception17 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
I imagine it will be a long tail. Most companies won’t fire people for AI but probably won’t immediately replace a person that leaves, if at all.
reply
upvoteby magicalhippo15 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Or won't hire that extra person when they need to increase output.
reply
upvoteby twelve4016 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
but this crap may take forever to play out even if the outcome is well-known. Self-driving is "here", it's obvious that once it's cheap enough having a human behind a car wheel or a freight truck wheel is an absurd waste of human life (kinda like digging canals with bare hands instead of an excavator), yet truckers and uber drivers are still employed. But everyone knows the writing is on the wall for them.
reply
upvoteby lovasoa14 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
the writing has been on the wall for fifteen years, and yet the number of professional drivers has only increased since then...
reply
upvoteby necovek13 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Is it? I believe it is fair to hope so and even expect it, but this has been promised as being just around the corner for 10+ years.

Yet here we are, still driving our own cars, and laughing at silly behavior of most advanced self-driving systems.

I am certain we'll get to something of similar value, but I expect we'll have to improve infrastructure too (smart roads).

reply