This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The Anthropic C-suite needs to rewatch Oppenheimer.
More details are emerging regarding the US Government's decision to impose defense export controls on Claude Fable. There are lots of similarities between this kerfuffle and the February Supply Chain Risk designation. Somehow, Anthropic executives still don't understand the language of power and government. It's not hard. All they need to do is watch Oppenheimer (and pay attention this time). If they still can't figure it out, here is my cheat sheet:
If you are working on sufficiently powerful technology with dual-use applications, then you work for the War Department. There is no option for you to continue your preferred work while licensing only peaceful civilian applications of your product.
If you piss off the wrong person, you're screwed. Some people will see defeating you as a stepping stone to greater power and influence. Some people will work to destroy you simply out of spite.
Anthropic has scientific geniuses, Anthropic has an Oppenheimer, but does Anthropic have a General Groves? How far do you think Oppenheimer would have gotten without General Groves?
If you are trying to convince the government that you are not a security risk, do not hire people like this and present them as neutral experts. (No seriously, what the actual fuck were they thinking?)
You don't get to decide what counts as a security risk and what doesn't. That is the job of the government and the political process.
The president does not care about your ethical concerns. You think you know how much he doesn't care, but he actually cares much less than that.
If you aren't okay with the government using your technology, then don't build it. Isidor Rabi said no. You can say no too.
If there are any Anthropic people reading this you should seriously consider relocating your company to the UK. We'd welcome you with open arms and treat you as an equal partner and not a vassal to do our bidding. London has a talent density and ecosystem unmatched by anywhere else outside the US.
Anthropic doesn't want their tech to be used to spy on Americans. Your solution is that Anthropic should move to the UK, which not 2 weeks ago announced that they will be requiring tech companies, under threat of prison, to scan anything and everything on every single persons phone.
Open arms, but check your back for a stiletto.
More options
Context Copy link
Anthropic already has a London office. Beyond that, Dario has a deep rootedness in San Francisco: he grew up here, went to Lowell, and returned as soon as he could after his studies. The choice to locate in San Francisco is rooted in a genuine love of place, not purely business reasons.
More options
Context Copy link
If there are any Anthropic people reading this, this is what he means by "treating you as an equal partner".
There is a reason why the Normans adopted "Earl" (a corruption of the Norse "Jarl") in place of a direct translation of the Norman-French "Comte" when conquering a country with a substantial Anglo-Saxon population familiar with vulgar Anglo-Saxon vocabulary. I would hate for @BurdemsomeCount to end up as an example of why they did this, but I think that post qualifies.
Shakespeare got there:
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I make an exception for the Anthropic set; they genuinely seem to believe they have duties to the rest of humanity and accept that we live in an interconnected society. No wedgies for them, only strong legal protections and a functioning judicial system limiting government overreach!
The thread where you said that was about Anthropic. This was your reaction to the same government overreach you're decrying now.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Funny idea. Unfortunately, you can't move the datacenters as easily as you can move the people. Anthropic mostly trains on AWS clusters located in the US, and I wouldn't be surprised if the USG would directly declare them to be a hostile foreign actor if they moved abroad, barring them from doing business with Amazon/Google/SpaceX.
And nobody in Europe can give them any meaningful compute. Hard to overstate how far behind Europe is in the AI race. Maybe the Saudis could jump in, if there's anything left standing there...
More options
Context Copy link
If it were a different leadership in charge of the White House, I honestly think this would be a possibility for Anthropic (though a different leadership probably wouldn't have thrown a hissy fit in the first place).
More options
Context Copy link
Gretchen, stop trying to make European AI competitiveness happen. It's not going to happen.
Something something Mistral, something something one BILLION dollar ten year investment.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link