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 -
Anthropic is Now Running Television Ads Threatening Humanity
I saw this ad play on my tv while watching the England vs Argentina postgame. I could not believe what I was watching. I had vaguely heard of a tone-deaf video from Anthropic communications, but I hadn't actually watched it until it popped up on my screen against my will. I am stunned that this is how Anthropic chose to portray themselves to the general public. Maybe this sort of messaging works on a tiny subset of niche technological policy nerds, but they played this during the World Cup.
The ad opens with scenes of destruction: a house ablaze, civil unrest in the streets, hundreds of graves at Arlington National Cemetary. A concerned voiceover asks the questions that many of us ask of the AI industry every day. "Can AI be trusted?" "Who's gonna hit the brakes if we need to?" "How do we really ensure that what we're aiming to acheive really does benefit the majority of people?" All good questions that the rest of the ad is utterly unconcerned with answering.
It feels like a threat. It doesn't feel like they're saying, "oh please God somebody stop us". It feels like they're saying, "just try and stop us, MUAHAHAHAHA!" I suppose it's good that they acknowledge the gravity of what they are undertaking, but that doesn't really matter if they keep doing it anyway.
Also, sort-of-unrelated-but-not-really: Is "Total Clanker Genocide" an acceptable sign for an anti-AI protest?
Is Anthropic evil or is it stupid?
For the longest time I thought they knew what they were doing, that this is all a ploy to force governments to regulate and thereby establish their dominant position over the field forever, since any competitor would no longer be able to even get the computer required. And then they can happily be the people who decide what you get to know about in a society that relies heavily on their product, a much stronger position that the people who regulate them.
But if they really wanted that, why the hell would they put insane conditions on military contracts? Maybe instead they got high off their own supply and are actually convinced they're making God and that because they're such right thinking bourgeois liberals, God will have their values and it's futile to resist the promised eternal rule of the managerial theaterkid Reich. Just be a nice heckin human bean okay, God cares.
Is there a third option I'm missing? Because what could bring someone to have made this "ad"? It's literally just saying "yes we are going to destroy your life, but not to worry, we still care about you in some abstract sense". Regular "we care" corporate bullshit at least has the decency to not fear monger about itself whilst delivering the empty platitudes.
Sincerely, do you imply here that AI is not going to be a strategically decisive technology? At present, Anthropic's power is nothing before Pete Hegseth, but that's not guaranteed to remain the case.
I'm not quite sure what you're implying here; it's quite possible that Anthropic's power eclipses that of Hegseth (because he gets fired) but in what world can Anthropic's power ever eclipse that of the American military?
In any in-distribution scenario the power of any American corporation is strictly inferior to the military (because the military has a monopoly on violence and the corporation does not) and in any crazy sci-fi FOOM / ASI loss of control scenario, Anthropic and the military will have the same amount of power (none).
Why do you presume loss of control?
Realistically, Anthropic gets its FOOM and has perfect control. Alignment isn't that hard. Of course, by that point they're likely still quite vulnerable to the monopoly on violence and their technology is nationalized. But a) they might think otherwise and b) in peacetime, they can scale their influence enormously, up to capturing both political parties.
It seems to me that this is only possible if
a) Anthropic's AI develops extremely superhuman capabilities in the vein of "overthrow the United States Government, make no mistakes".
b) Alignment is solved (I am not sure why you are so confident alignment is easy, given the abysmal state of mech interp relative to capabilities).
c) FOOM from "mundane" capabilities overlooked by the nation-state to "extremely superhuman" is so rapid that the nation-state cannot intervene before a) is achieved.
If a) is not true then AI works out like nukes; despite the strategic importance of nuclear weapons, Oppenheimer never got any say in how the bomb was used. The state will use its monopoly on violence to take control of the models, and Anthropic will not win that fight regardless of petty things like party donations or good PR; the only thing a functional nation state cannot tolerate under any circumstances is a threat to its sovereignty.
If b) is not true then straightforwardly if anyone builds it everyone dies.
If c) is not true then the scenario loops around to the first case; well before the models reach the "single-handedly overthrow the nation-state" stage, the models and frontier labs are inevitably going to be nationalized and made subordinate to the military.
I'm not quite sure if you're arguing that these three premises all being true is logically possible (which I concede is correct, although as an aside, I would argue that any world where all of these premises are made true would resemble the current world so little that saying "Anthropic" would be more powerful than the "Pentagon" would have little semantic meaning, but that is not particularly relevant to the main point here), or if your position is that it is actually plausible in reality that all three of these premises will be true simultaneously.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link