It's pretty simple.
-
@cwebber I mean, maybe the guy was part of a marketing maneuver, but that seems kind of extreme on his part. Or maybe the companies capitalized on the concerns he raised.
-
@mk30 @cwebber @FantasticalEconomics
It not the "kill everyone" part that is the selling point. It's the "so powerful".
@Lily_and_frog @cwebber @FantasticalEconomics but...if it kills everyone.... Do you see where I'm going with this?
-
-
@cwebber I mean, maybe the guy was part of a marketing maneuver, but that seems kind of extreme on his part. Or maybe the companies capitalized on the concerns he raised.
-
@Lily_and_frog @cwebber @FantasticalEconomics but...if it kills everyone.... Do you see where I'm going with this?
@mk30 @cwebber @FantasticalEconomics
Yeah, it smells of desperation.
On the other hand, no one in power cared for the long term for a very long time.
All those AI investors never stopped to ask themselves "who will buy the stuff if everyone loses their job" either...
-
It's pretty simple. You're hearing "We're so scared of the AIs, we need to reign them in" from the very US companies building and selling them for two reasons:
- They're about to IPO, and it's amazing marketing for them
- They want a regulatory moat, since they're deeply worried about the open weight LLMs. They want everyone dependent on this tech and to be *the only ones legally permitted to dispense it*.@cwebber I'm writing an explainer on this. Should be out in the next day or so. I broke it down into four main parties: OpenAI/SpaceX/Anthropic; capital markets, the US government, and creepy nerds.
-
@brunogirin @cwebber I mean, almost by definition!
-
-
@Lily_and_frog @cwebber @FantasticalEconomics but...if it kills everyone.... Do you see where I'm going with this?
@mk30 @Lily_and_frog @cwebber @FantasticalEconomics rich people don't understand that they're also mortal. To them, it's the "kill everyone but me" machine, their favorite type!
-
@mk30 @Lily_and_frog @cwebber @FantasticalEconomics rich people don't understand that they're also mortal. To them, it's the "kill everyone but me" machine, their favorite type!
@raphaelmorgan @Lily_and_frog @cwebber @FantasticalEconomics so far this is the only answer that makes some sense.
-
It's pretty simple. You're hearing "We're so scared of the AIs, we need to reign them in" from the very US companies building and selling them for two reasons:
- They're about to IPO, and it's amazing marketing for them
- They want a regulatory moat, since they're deeply worried about the open weight LLMs. They want everyone dependent on this tech and to be *the only ones legally permitted to dispense it*. -
It's pretty simple. You're hearing "We're so scared of the AIs, we need to reign them in" from the very US companies building and selling them for two reasons:
- They're about to IPO, and it's amazing marketing for them
- They want a regulatory moat, since they're deeply worried about the open weight LLMs. They want everyone dependent on this tech and to be *the only ones legally permitted to dispense it*.Regulatory capture -- always a fun game for sociopaths
Tort law manipulation in disguise.
The fossil fuel industry & its shills in AI want what the gun lobby got; the impunity to mass murder
https://themodernregulator.com/how-regulatory-capture-works-and-what-regulators-can-do-about-it/The goal is to shield profits & privilege to a select few.
https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/regulatory-capture/https://www.rstreet.org/commentary/bootleggers-baptists-and-ai/
It also balloons profits for bootleggers, just like Prohibition did for the mafia
-
It's pretty simple. You're hearing "We're so scared of the AIs, we need to reign them in" from the very US companies building and selling them for two reasons:
- They're about to IPO, and it's amazing marketing for them
- They want a regulatory moat, since they're deeply worried about the open weight LLMs. They want everyone dependent on this tech and to be *the only ones legally permitted to dispense it*.@cwebber we do have to reign AI in, AI right now is enough of a threat, but the only people talking about safety are the ones that stand to gain financially from regulatory capture. Yet again the progressives self-own by blindly going the opposite direction of whatever capital is saying
-
@cwebber so, I tend to agree with this pov.
But the current AI safety conversation started when an ex-Anthropic researcher said he was scared, which doesn't fit the corporate astroturfing narrative.
https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/anthropic-researcher-quits-over-out-of-control-ai-fears-707b7628
-
@cwebber so, I tend to agree with this pov.
But the current AI safety conversation started when an ex-Anthropic researcher said he was scared, which doesn't fit the corporate astroturfing narrative.
https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/anthropic-researcher-quits-over-out-of-control-ai-fears-707b7628
-
@cwebber I suspect also that they would like to reign in their outrageous R&D costs.
They know their customers are not loyal and are sensitive to both price and perceived quality.
Establishing an anticompetitive cabal fixes that problem.
@aoristdual @cwebber rein: horses and LLMs
reign: kingsThank you for coming to my TED talk.
-
Regulatory capture -- always a fun game for sociopaths
Tort law manipulation in disguise.
The fossil fuel industry & its shills in AI want what the gun lobby got; the impunity to mass murder
https://themodernregulator.com/how-regulatory-capture-works-and-what-regulators-can-do-about-it/The goal is to shield profits & privilege to a select few.
https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/regulatory-capture/https://www.rstreet.org/commentary/bootleggers-baptists-and-ai/
It also balloons profits for bootleggers, just like Prohibition did for the mafia
-
@mcc > Gödel said you can be complete *or* consistent.
ah is this why good backwards compatibility is at odds with a compact interface
-
J jeppe@uddannelse.social shared this topic
