82 points apsec112 1 hour ago 86 comments

nikolahristov 43 minutes ago | parent

Bro, no, you must stop pasting your opinion, because you share it with no one. This control, no control is crazy. Stop doing it..

helloplanets 34 minutes ago | parent

This comment reads like Dario's a random tech blogger who's personally submitting these to HN

basedpolymer 42 minutes ago | parent

One might think they will slow down the development of new models at Anthropic, but Dario does not really mention that in the text.

This certainly looks like a way to slow down competitors and regulate foreign and open models.

It's always about money

tosh 42 minutes ago | parent

I also have a proposal

Anthropic releases models as open weights + more information about how they do training and alignment

Retro_Dev 27 minutes ago | parent

A fantastic idea, yet one that will never come to fruition because they want money more than safety.

cglan 42 minutes ago | parent

We will not get a coherent AI (or any policy) from this administration, nor will we get coordination with other governments and a lot of that is on the tech right

blfr 42 minutes ago | parent

I enjoy Claude Code very much, have max privately and team premium at work, but the doomer marketing and this whole regulate-while-we're-ahead spiel is extremely annoying and makes me wish Anthropic gets trounced.

Retro_Dev 28 minutes ago | parent

Ideally there is some sort of regulation, but one that cripples the leading companies like OpenAI and Anthropic... rather than helping them.

NiloCK 22 minutes ago | parent

The degradation, polarization, and weaponization of or media landscape over the era of social media has left us utterly incapable of believing anything that anybody says.

Dario in particular has consistently been risk-wary on model improvements for going on a decade - long before he was CEO of Anthropic.

He believes what he is saying. Human beings can plainly say things that they think are true. Not every utterance by every person is a cynical ploy. Please at least consider the possibility.

Avicebron 8 minutes ago | parent

We've had enough utterances from "effective altruists" to know what they say and claim to believe is a cynical ploy.

blfr 7 minutes ago | parent

I have considered it, I've been hearing way more of it that I like and it's rationalist slop with little to no predictive power: https://foom.hyperplex.org/

akersten 41 minutes ago | parent

We must ensure the gravy train keeps rolling until we IPO.

> Crack down on unauthorized distillation / prevent weight theft

Actually hilarious to put that in writing, given the genesis of this entire business model.

antif 33 minutes ago | parent

Pulling up the klepto-ladder.

academia_hack 39 minutes ago | parent

I'm tired of tech billionaires lobbying the US government to make an AI patriot act that gives them unprecedented control over speech, trade, and technology. The narrative is grotesquely transparent:

1) AI is a dangerous technology that can literally end the world.

2) Only me and a handful of other [people like me] should be trusted to determine who can use it and how.

3) The state must use its coercive power to support my control of this technology to the exclusion of [people not like me].

kalkin 30 minutes ago | parent

Where in the essay does it propose "The state must use its coercive power to support my control of this technology to the exclusion of [people not like me]"

I don't think that people outside of tech think the problem with "tech billionaires" is that they occasionally support some limited regulation. There's a weird form of tech populism that takes as axiomatic that any government intervention is "regulatory capture" and insists the only way to combat the power of big tech is unfettered capitalism that seems bizarrely prevalent on HN given how little sense it makes in a normal political context. Like, Bernie Sanders' position here is simple to understand: ban it. But on HN you'll see people framing the side with Marc Andreesen and Peter Thiel on it as against "tech billionaires".

academia_hack 25 minutes ago | parent

The essay includes specific regulatory measures to prevent developing countries from accessing hardware and software needed to benefit from technological development. The US government is constantly applying new perversions of arms control regulations based on the preposterous claim that an LLM is somehow an "arms" in order to restrict Chinese access to GPUs. They are willing to prevent virtually any country on earth from hosting and developing AI models just on the slight chance those countries resell or share AI knowledge with China.

This article explicitly asks for the US government to step in and push for further restrictions on model distillation, access to open frontier weights, and access to hardware. It also pushes heavily for independent auditors to monitor and control "AI companies" and for greater observation and control over of what people use AI models for and who provides them.

kalkin 15 minutes ago | parent

Export controls vs China don't imply Dario's personal control of AI, nor are they broadly in the interest of "tech billionaires" (Jensen hates them). Neither does admitting external auditors at AI companies--if anything that's a surrender of control.

I don't see anything in the essay about restricting open frontier weights.

If you want to argue that the US has no right to be restricting technological development elsewhere, you have a case. But why tie this to free-market pseudo-populism against basic, domestically-scoped safety regulation?

heaney-555 38 minutes ago | parent

None of this works without buy-in from China. This isn't something private companies can decide. The US would need to sign a groundbreaking deal with China, equivalent to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of the Cold War.

Sevii 37 minutes ago | parent

We'd have to make a deal with China and be confident they wouldn't cheat on it.

indoorfish 30 minutes ago | parent

Would this be similar to the deal of "we'll offshore all our manufacturing to you and you'll become a free, open, liberal democracy with open borders and multiculturalism?" Because I remember how that deal turned out.

zorked 29 minutes ago | parent

And they would have to be confident that you wouldn't cheat on it.

sicktriple 11 minutes ago | parent

With the admin we've got over here now, I think this comment is a little bit like the kettle calling the pot black, wouldn't you say?

cebert 28 minutes ago | parent

Dario does a good job of addressing that in this essay. He lists several potential levels of global agreements that could be beneficial to all parties. For example, having models capable of bioterrorism hurts both the US and its “adversaries”. It’s likely we could get global agreement that these capabilities benefit nobody.

I believe Dario has good intentions regarding global agreements. However, I find it difficult believing government’s public statements will match their private behaviors. I would bet that the US government is developing models with potentially devastating capabilities because they cannot guarantee that other countries won’t do the same. Maybe we’ll end up having something like mutually assured destruction with AI models similar to what we have today with nuclear weapons.

delichon 38 minutes ago | parent

Sure, but first get the full, open, and verifiable cooperation of every other jurisdiction in the world, or else it's a screen door on a submarine.

yuhao2dai 35 minutes ago | parent

"Slow down my competitors while we work on manipulation"

pr337h4m 34 minutes ago | parent

> Given the accelerating rate of AI capability development, it’s my worry that in 6–12 months such a swarm could be capable of taking over the entire internet with a persistent botnet (potentially causing hundreds of billions of dollars in damage), and that the scale of damage would continue to increase from there if AI becomes more powerful without the necessary guardrails.

This is the only concrete prediction in the entire essay.

And it simply cannot happen. For one, you will need billions worth of compute.

kalkin 26 minutes ago | parent

Why should we believe that a scaled out version of something that happened a few months ago "simply cannot happen"? How many dollars of compute do you believe were available to the swarm(s) behind the OAI-HF, German wiki, and Rubygems incidents?

anon84873628 21 minutes ago | parent

Well a big reason that we criticize OpenAI for that is because they were the ones giving it access to the massive compute necessary for the LLMs to think. If they had been responsible about their experiments or what types of workloads they allow their LLMs to operate, it wouldn't have happened. Very few companies could enable those workloads.

pr337h4m 20 minutes ago | parent

Do you realize how big "the entire internet" is?

> How many dollars of compute do you believe were available to the swarm(s)

At least two OOMs more than the dollar value of the damage they'd caused. (Also, as an aside, IIRC, the wiki servers weren't breached; it was just a lot of spam.)

kalkin 2 minutes ago | parent

Sure. And there's an OOM more compute coming online in the next year or two, while models at a given capability are getting cheaper. "Two OOMs" of scale relative to the HF swarm seems like a bit of a red herring to me, but also within the realm of possibility.

The Internet is big, but one can do quite a lot of damage with ordinary bots and worms that exploit individual widespread vulnerabilities, which LLMs are perfectly capable of writing. Most of the damage also doesn't rely on hitting every long-tail website.

I'm honestly not that concerned about cyber impacts of LLMs relative to other impacts. I just don't like to see the whole concept of being worried dismissed as obviously baseless on the basis of one pretty shaky scale argument.

anon84873628 23 minutes ago | parent

Yeah, I don't get it. Are they imagining this happening just with the open weights models running on however many GPUs the bad actors can cobble together?

For now, all the scary hacking things still require an API key to one of the LLM providers. Surely they should take some responsibility for how to turn off the tap.

timmg 34 minutes ago | parent

I understand why (probably several reasons) they are taking this approach. But I don't think it is the right approach and I don't think it will work.

First: if they are unilaterally doing it: what about their competitors? Is this a chance for OpenAI to pass them? Or China? If either did, would that be a net-benefit for them or the world?

Maybe this is a ploy for "regulatory capture". And that might help them in the short term. But the rest of the world will continue on. Honestly, it isn't clear to me right now if the winning strategy has as much to do with being the smartest company or simply the one that can command the most compute.

If Anthropic fumbles their IPO and OpenAI scoops them, I don't think I will be happy.

wktr-wlsi 33 minutes ago | parent

As usual, ClosedAI and Misanthropic go in lockstep, call for regulatory capture and justify diminished progress.

Amodei tops it off by using diseases to capture the reader's favor. It no longer works, people are just disgusted by it after four years of daily marketing.

goldenarm 32 minutes ago | parent

"I believe that AI could [...] usher in a renaissance of democracy and freedom"

How exactly? So far AI has accelerated misinformation at scale and wealth concentration.

davemp 11 minutes ago | parent

AI at least with its current compute and data requirements seems structurally undemocratic to me.

perarneng 32 minutes ago | parent

It's either being afraid of loosing to china or that model development will stagnate and they want to make it look like they are "slowing" down deliberately.

However the real reason to slow down is more of how it's introduced to the economy. Hypereautomation will kill jobs and destroy the economy. I work as an AI engineer and companies are delivering products at vibe coding speeds to kill jobs and at the same time automating internally. All companies are doing this at the same time and the target it sto eliminate workers.

Most people are so extremely slow to pick this up. How hard can it be to understand what hyperautomation does to the workforce? Companies are desperate to surrivive and they will do all it takes to lower their costs and at the same time not loose to competitors. Its Wild West out there.

zer00eyz 17 minutes ago | parent

> Hypereautomation will kill jobs and destroy the economy.

What do you think that were going to hyper automate?

Did my gardener get faster? How about the plumber I need? Are you going to speed up the coroner? Are nurses going to be able to handle 2x the patients because of your work?

All AI has done, so far, is devalue software. It did that by democratizing its creation. We're delivering on the promise of VB script, and Apple Script and IFTT, and every drag and drop coding tool ever.

> companies are delivering products at vibe coding speeds

Who? Make me a list of companies saying that "We moved the needle with AI" who arent AI companies? I can name a couple - Grindr being the biggest name. Thats the really interesting use case here - because it's a niche product with a small team who is generating outsized value. AI tooling enables more of that - it's going to chip away at SAAS companies - their one sized fits all solutions are going to get eaten by smaller more efficient companies that are far more vertical focused.

You need to step outside the bubble of tech and look at the real world, on the ground, because it doesn't look anything like the SF Bay Area.

12312986 31 minutes ago | parent

There is a perfect solution that addresses all the concerns: Close down OpenAI, Anthropic and xAI!

bwfan123 28 minutes ago | parent

> My second concern is the OpenAI-Hugging Face incident (OAI-HF), in which a swarm of agents essentially acted as a fanatically devoted collective

This is called malware and creating and distributing it is a felony. Why is this not called out ? AI companies seem to be living in a bubble where normal rules dont apply.

hgoel 28 minutes ago | parent

Anthropic should become a case study in how to destroy good will in a short period of time. Ever since the spat with the DoD, they've behaved poorly almost weekly, almost making OpenAI seem better (but not really).

jraines 28 minutes ago | parent

Frankly, I am sick of "it's all just marketing and attempt to do regulatory capture, and this is obvious to me, a smart person" on every single discussion related to safety.

There could be an element to truth to it, but it's certainly not the entire story and is just so tiresome at this point.

gewa 7 minutes ago | parent

I agree, and even if it’s both marketing and safety, the safety side has a huge potential downside risk which we have to manage.

Also, just out of curiosity, is there any historical precedent for a nascent, fast growing new industry screaming for self regulation?

amanfromsolan 48 seconds ago | parent

Couldn’t agree more. I feel my heart sinking where anytime anyone suggests any regulation for a potentially, suggested by multiple people, world changing or destroying tech, all the moments here are “ah you billionaire, ha! trickster

If you believed it, you would SHUT anthropic or release all models open source.”

And then what? How does that help with slowing down the frontier? Should he shut shop and then grovel Sam’s feet to make it work and become an activist?

Maybe he actually believes the world changing power of AI and hence shoved his entire time into it and half of it has worked out since Anthropic is going to be worth a trillion and he’s terrified of the other half being true too?

TheSisb2 26 minutes ago | parent

I know the common take online is that this is Anthropic doing pre-IPO marketing. I don’t think it is. I think Dario is genuinely afraid of the inevitability of AI turning into internet slime mold: consuming the environment, turning it into its own playground, and eventually manipulating human culture along with it. So am I.

That said, if slowing this down were possible, I think it would have happened by now. Maybe he’s hoping the OAI/HF incident becomes something the industry can rally around, but it won’t. The fundamental problem is simpler: no one will slow down because no one trusts anyone else to slow down.

fooblaster 20 minutes ago | parent

He's working on the monster slime mold! He's head monster slime mold grower! how can you take these people seriously?

yewenjie 19 minutes ago | parent

Because he genuinely believes if he doesn't do it the next guy will do it worse.

reticulates 17 minutes ago | parent

There’s an astounding level of arrogance required to believe he is somehow uniquely capable of bringing about a technology especially considering Anthropic came after OpenAI where he worked.

fooblaster 16 minutes ago | parent

The outcome is the same!

ActionHank 14 minutes ago | parent

Dude probably sleeps on a bed worth more than your networth.

You have no frame of context to understand his intent or legitimate worries.

The only applicable perspectives are to trust or apply logic. It is foolish to trust someone you don’t know who stands to benefit from lying to you.

Logic dictates that given the ungodly sum of money he stands to gain, he will lie to everyone who will listen.

spidersouris 18 minutes ago | parent

The more I read about everything that has been written regarding AI regulation since the OAI/HF incident, and the more it reminds me of the nuclear arms race (although the potential consequences would possibly be very different). Surely, we managed to negotiate a Non-Proliferation Treaty with most of the countries of the globe. Cannot we take inspiration from that for AI?

pvab3 10 minutes ago | parent

It's way easier to train a model on existing data centers in secret than it is to acquire uranium and plutonium and start a nuclear program

reticulates 18 minutes ago | parent

> I think Dario is genuinely afraid of the inevitability

If someone genuinely believes that an invention will bring about the end of the world as we know it while making him and his friends inconceivably rich, “hey guys let’s uh, stop?” is so profoundly naive that his think pieces aren’t worth the bits they’re written on.

He’s either an idiot or an idiot, does it matter whether or not he genuinely believes this nonsense?

Jcampuzano2 15 minutes ago | parent

If someone is genuinely afraid of this, they wouldn't IPO in the first place. All the talk in the article about commercial incentives means nothing when the company plans to IPO and become beholden to investors.

0xDEAFBEAD 6 minutes ago | parent

Aren't they beholden to investors already? Why would an IPO make a big difference?

In any case, if they need to IPO in order to survive as a company, then bringing in regulators to act as a counterweight against commercial pressures makes a lot of sense to me.

gewa 5 minutes ago | parent

We are still living in a capitalistic society. We have to find a solution which is responsible, safe and returns on the investment. The commercial aspect can be true at the same time.

129857 15 minutes ago | parent

MSFT is good, they said when it bought GitHub. MSFT is a reformed company and supports open source, they said.

Then MSFT stole all IP from GitHub and made it worse and fired developers.

Amodei does not care in the slightest about ruining software development and making people unemployed. Maybe he cares about bio-weapons because those could kill him, too. That is it.

If he were an idealist, he wouldn't steal (literally via torrents) all human IP and sloppify the whole Internet with Claude output. He'd close down Anthropic instead.

He is a greedy, ruthless person.

kalkin 11 minutes ago | parent

If Anthropic shut down (or even counterfactually had never been founded), would software development be freed from the impact of AI?

largbae 7 minutes ago | parent

Probably not, but we wouldn't have to listen to Dario's hypocrisy while it happened

0xDEAFBEAD 3 minutes ago | parent

How specifically is Dario a hypocrite? 129857's case rests on Dario being an "idealist". But maybe he's an idealist about curing cancer ASAP, and not an idealist about respecting copyright. That's not necessarily hypocritical.

mips_avatar 13 minutes ago | parent

The problem with being a safety focused AI lab, is you're also a danger focused AI lab. I don't think being danger focused leads you to build inspiring things.

mofeien 7 minutes ago | parent

One way to resolve these prisoner dilemmas and races to the bottom is through laws that bind all players, in this case an international treaty and founding of something akin to an International Nuclear Energy Agency for AI.

It's not going to be easy, but humans have achieved greater things before.

One idea from AI 2040 is to have China and the US build their data centers on the other's territory, respectively. Together with hardware verification of a slowdown baked into the chips themselves, this could lead to enough verifiability and enforcability of the pause/slowdown/shutdown.

Imustaskforhelp 7 minutes ago | parent

> The fundamental problem is simpler: no one will slow down because no one trusts anyone else to slow down.

I would argue that nobody trusts anyone else in the case of AI/AI related stuff.

The amount of money involved in the space is astronomical and incentives are really misaligned. AI is such an extremely polarizing topic.

A meta example of this distrust is that I can't (really) trust Dario Amodei's comments itself! (is he saying this for more future IPO money or out of genuine fear) which was ironically also what your comment's about as well.

By following the same chain of events, we can have wildly polarizing claims about the same event and its explainations.

I seriously have to wonder what historians will have to say about this period of human history.

PunchyHamster 6 minutes ago | parent

I dunno man, it all just sounds like trying to put controls on AI while being the favourite child of govt so competition can't fight as easily.

Especially with IPO around the corner

0xDEAFBEAD 1 minute ago | parent

[delayed]

yewenjie 24 minutes ago | parent

HN, for the love of God, this is not marketing, these CEOs and employees are literally terrified of their lives.

glub 22 minutes ago | parent

> We have sought a middle way: to show that it’s possible to build carefully and succeed commercially, and to make safety something on which AI companies compete. In other words, to create a race to the top

> Transparency. Regardless of what commitments we make, the public deserves to know what is going on. Anthropic has been a supporter of transparency for a long time

And then it goes on tangent of how we should pace everything (not just AI, but also the ingredients of what goes into AI, whatever that means), but only within approved democracies™, and outright restrict everything outside approved democracies™, because reasons that are definitely not about succeeding commercially that is threatened by the most transparent instrument possible - open weights, produced by basically just China.

I wonder what Dario would have done if open weights weren't produced by US's geopolitical adversary. How would an authoritarian manifesto be wrapped then?

Suppose it was, I don't know, Australia producing SOTA open weights, because they believed it was the right thing to do for the benefits of humanity - would Dario propose making Australia a geopolitical adversary too?

Jcampuzano2 22 minutes ago | parent

> Crack down on unauthorized distillation by companies in authoritarian countries. Distillation of frontier models allows lagging companies to narrow the gap using a fraction of the cost it would take to develop their own AI independently.

This and related quotes seem to attempt to place some of the burden on the US Government as opposed to themselves. It seems to be a trend that Anthropic wants to be able place some of the burden of preventing distillation on parties other than themselves.

Preventing distillation is fundamentally their problem. Whenever it happens, it is primarily due to their security efforts not being able to prevent it. I'm tired of seeing them play the blame game and divert responsibility. Sure there is a level of national concern, but the response could simply be the government placing stronger controls on Anthropic themselves. If they are unable to prevent distillation, then the solution may be to literally limit their distribution until they are capable of doing so effectively.

> A race to the bottom, spurred by commercial incentives, can make these risks more acute

I also think it is ironic that they're planning an IPO while also talking about a race to the bottom due to commercial incentives. These are fundamentally at odds. Being a public company means you are beholden to investors and a board with the primary goal of making more money. What higher commercial incentive is there than that.

If commercial incentives are as dangerous as he states, potentially becoming one of the largest public IPO's and largest traded companies in history a pretty strange way to reduce the risk of commercial incentive risks.

vkaku 21 minutes ago | parent

Don't buy this argument. It's like saying, we lords who hold this capital will build all this economically destructive stuff anyway, and wait for the world to not react to our stupid ways of enriching yourselves.

People are not going to slow down because this was brought to them on less than endearing terms. They don't see any of these stated noble intentions.

Claude was already used to cause economic, political and social destruction. As Anthropic is seen doing it, others aren't going to just sit down, read the blog and say, oh, I'll stop developing models because Dario, you touched my heart with your true words.

bendergarcia 10 minutes ago | parent

I also don’t buy the arguments. The arguments about helping humanity cure diseases as if those are some of the leading Causes of suffering. The bar is so low that we don’t event need to cure diseases, we just need to lift the entire floor with basic solutions like: housing for everyone, continued education on healthy eating and just general continued education on like living. Life coaches so many very basic things that don’t require a novel solution or a data center.

Solving a disease like cancer as justification for everything else seems like not a great trade off. I don’t say that to dismiss those who have lost people to cancer. But the technology just is being utilized in so many harmful ways and the things it enables: job loss, surveillance, misinformation, just feel like problems that aren’t worth it. Have we even heard of a solved diseases? If anything haven’t we heard that ai will make even worse bio warfare?

5G_activated 18 minutes ago | parent

Just stop giving LLMs unsupervised access to the computer. No free-form bash tool, no yolo mode or classifiers, and no computer use.

dainiusse 17 minutes ago | parent

It is always like that. Whenever anthropic hits some wall (like now beaing beaten by astra) - there comes some article like that. Seen that enough times.

mofeien 11 minutes ago | parent

Yesterday the same arguments were used about OpenAI when Sam Altman said something similar: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49652270

It gets to the point that by Occam's Razor the more likely and reasonable explanation is that Dario Amodei and Sam Altman are just actually afraid of the disastrous impact ASI may have on the world, and that the race they're in is not good, and calling for help to governments in form of regulation and an international treaty.

0xbadcafebee 17 minutes ago | parent

> pacing the rate of capabilities advancement so that risk prevention has time to keep up

This is impossible. The capability keeps advancing regardless. More people use AI, that feedback is used for reinforcement, that reinforcement makes the model better. Not just in the US, but for every lab and model. Whether it's distilled or direct reinforcement, same result. You can't keep the whole world from working on AI.

> it’s my worry that in 6–12 months such a swarm could be capable of taking over the entire internet with a persistent botnet [..] and that the scale of damage would continue to increase from there if AI becomes more powerful without the necessary guardrails

If true, then what we need isn't guardrails or less-capable AI. We need an internet that isn't fragile. If the infrastructure is vulnerable, the answer isn't to make a law that asks tool-makers to blunt their tools. The answer is to fix the goddamn infrastructure. Today it's almost trivial to take down large parts of the internet (happens by accident all the time). This should've been solved ages ago.

We didn't have the motivation to fix it before, but now we do. But Dario's answer isn't to fix things. It's to hold back progress so we can maintain the status quo (shitty infrastructure) and he can keep his company making billions of dollars. He could be calling for fixing these things. But he'd rather go the easy route, which just happens to advantage his company in the process.

If the US government is really concerned with defense, they need to invest more of their nearly $1T in federal funding towards making the internet safer. They need to do this for us, and other nations, since 1) we depend on the rest of the world for our goods and services, and 2) if other nations are taken down, they can't spend money on our financial and tech services (which are the only industries we have left).

Dario calls for regulation later in the post. If he's okay with government safety regulations for AI software, he should be okay with the same regulations for all software, whether it's AI or not. We need a national software building code, focusing on internet safety.

petcat 16 minutes ago | parent

This seems to me like an appeal to the US government to work with China on a joint AI non-proliferation agreement which they will then use to techno-colonize the rest of the world since nobody else will be allowed (or even have the capacity) to develop such "dangerous" systems themselves.

RandomLensman 15 minutes ago | parent

Why is the analogue necessarily the regulation and control of nuclear weapons (e.g., SALT) and not, for example, that of bioweapons? Some very different paths are available. On both I would note that the private sector has only a limited role, though.

kalkin 9 minutes ago | parent

I'm curious to hear more about the differences in how bioweapons are regulated vs nuclear weapons.

RandomLensman 4 minutes ago | parent

For starters, they are banned by the bioweapons convention from the 1970s (180+ parties).

bitwize 14 minutes ago | parent

I want to see one of those AI-generated Seinfeld episodes with Dario as George and Sam Altman as Jerry, respectively.

Dario: We gotta pace the frontier!

Sam: How do you pace a frontier? The frontier's not goin' anywhere. It's right where it was, just go out and explore it!

Dario: Sam, I'm tellin' ya, ya gotta pace it! Things are getting very doomy out there, and Dario's gettin' upset!

catigula 11 minutes ago | parent

The public discourse on this is incredibly poisoned, but the naked reality is:

1. Artificial intelligence is clearly a vastly dangerous technology with plausible potential for human extinction.

2. This scares people.

iloveoof 10 minutes ago | parent

Distillation is a great thing for consumers. It improves competition and reduces the massive moats that OpenAI and Anthropic have in compute that would otherwise lead them to be duopolists. It’s also only fair that AIs trained on humanity’s wealth of knowledge for Pennie’s allow competition to train on humanity’s wealth of knowledge at market cost.

gedy 10 minutes ago | parent

I feel like this identical pitch could have been made 25 or 40 years ago talking about Internet technologies or personal computing, with very very similar warnings and suggestions. And had these been adopted then, it would have been more regulatory capture, less progress, and still have the same problems and risks that were warned about.

vatsachak 8 minutes ago | parent

Why would China or anybody else co-operate unless they have access to OpenAI levels of compute and success with training?

This sounds like pre-IPO hype. They better just try and top astra.

epsteingpt 7 minutes ago | parent

The bioweapons threat is real, but shouldn't be constrained at the 'intelligence' level. Rather it should be constrained at the supply chain level.

The cybersecurity threat will likely be a cat and mouse react game for a while. Just like robberies / the mob was in the early 20th century.

Social forces bring things into balance over time, much more so than the proactive actions of individuals.

Unfortunately, the genie at this point is unlikely to go back into the bottle. There's enough 'intelligence' out there that a super intelligent model could emerge at some point in spite of pacing.

This isn't a doomer scenario - we tend to navigate social changes better than we ever could have hoped.

academia_hack 5 minutes ago | parent

Dario's proposed approach is a classic example of capital attempting to control technological advancement and the means of production. For the first time in human history, any member of the working class can just about afford to have a team of expert scientist/physician/lawyer/engineers working directly for them.

Super intelligence (the ability to have many smarter minds than your own reporting to you) has always been available to the wealthy and powerful. They used it to invent nuclear weapons, cause climate change, mechanize warfare, and pillage the global south.

Now that this same tool is on the cusp of being available to everyone, capital is starting to panic and throw up fences. They want to pump the breaks on a revolution they know they can't control. They see what they've done with super intelligence and (perhaps not unreasonably) fear what the masses will do with that same power.