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?
So my take is that Dario really likes the Biden era AI plan where there would be a small number of officially sanctioned companies who worked with government on regulation and all other AI vendors would be effectively banned.
He thinks that by making threats and warnings he can get that back.
However he is bad at politics. He doesn't seem to grasp that the Trump admin isn't going to give him any control over government policies. They are philosophically opposed to a setup where the elected President has to follow the dictates of a specific citizen with no constitutional authority.
The Fable block is best understood in this light.
"Our model is so dangerous! Congress must act to regulate us!"
"We can regulate you without Congress."
So I think we're going to see a long series of events where Anthropic pokes the government and the government smacks them down. At least for the rest of Trump's term.
Dario might end up putting himself in a position where's he's ousted. I think that's more likely than him learning to back down.
The failure mode of the technocrat. "Clearly running the country is too important to be left to the ignorant, it should be in the hands of trained professional smart people like us. And only us."
That Fable thing really was "AI should be regulated!" "Okay" "No, not like that!" They want to be the ones deciding who gets to play with the toys and the government tamely follows their instructions as regards shutting down their rivals, but it's not going to work like that.
I don't know why people keep repeating this. From Anthropic:
Does this sound like Anthropic decides who uses their models? Does Ford decide who uses their cars?
Yes, they weren't happy about a schizophrenic and vindictive ban of their model due to capabilities that it shares with other models.
You can be in favor of a consistent regulatory framework without being in favor of arbitrary decisions by the president based on who is in and who is out.
You can, but cars, airplanes and drugs are famous examples of very heavily regulated industries where creating a new business is almost impossible, incumbents rule, and incumbents and their lobbyists design the majority of the regulations themselves.
This is, in fact:
and Anthropic is just putting it into nice friendly words that people are swallowing. While I deeply dislike the way the Trump government handled the Fable incident, all this ultimately a fight over who gets to rule, who gets to be in and out, and who gets to set the rules. If the Trump government had calmly and consistently mandated open weight releases and anti-monopoly legislation, Anthropic would be screaming about how this was unsafe.
Creating a new business in these sectors is difficult because the sectors are inherently difficult to make money in. Moderna was founded in 2010 and basically had nothing going on until Covid. SpaceX was founded 2002 and only had a successful launch in 2008 after near bankruptcy. It is nevertheless possible to enter these markets.
I don't see the contradiction here. "You say you want regulatory regime A, but in fact you would hate regulatory regime B which doesn't accomplish the same goals. Curious!" The point is not that Anthropic wants a regulatory regime, they want a regulatory regime that is oriented around mitigating AI risks.
Anthropic's conception of 'mitigating AI risks' is 'do everything I say, just the way I say it, and this system has to be enforced by someone who thinks like me'. It's like Microsoft saying, 'look, I don't want a monopoly, I just want to recognise that CPUs being able to run an open or foreign OS is a clear threat to public safety, and incidentally don't you think Apple bundling OS and hardware really deserves anti-monopoly legislation?'.
If your preferred regulatory regime also excludes almost all your potential competitors except the ones you're basically okay with, then it is indistinguishable from a power grab. From a customer and an enthusiast perspective I really don't care which of Anthropic or OpenAI comes out on top. I don't just want it to be technically possible to enter these markets, I want it to be easy. I want us to strain every sinew to allow new AI companies to start, I want us to give gobs of compute to anyone who isn't Anthropic or OpenAI. Let a thousand flowers bloom!
This is a fully general counterargument against any regulation. Even your proposed regime rounds off to "do everything I say the way I say it and it has to be enforced by someone who thinks like me."
Their stated beliefs on AI dangers, which philosophically long predate Anthropic as a going concern, are entirely consistent with the proposed regime. In fact, it would be contradictory for them to believe in AI risks and argue for laissez-faire. Perhaps you disagree on the risks, but that is the root of the disagreement, not the regulatory framework.
Well, that's the rub, isn't it? I think that their stated beliefs on AI dangers, which long predate Anthropic as a going concern (and which like all delusions survived the future being completely different from all claims made for the last 15 years), are delusions of grandeur for the Silicon Valley class the way that the Cult of Reason justified taking over France and cutting off the heads off anyone who expressed doubt. The sincerity of their beliefs, which I mostly don't doubt, can't be separated from the fact that these beliefs are grossly self-aggrandising and justify the infinite self-serving accumulation of power.
My point is that a power grab is still a power grab. Dressing it up in impassioned and sincere rhetoric about how everyone will die if they don't get power doesn't make it any less of a power grab.
(My proposed regime at least rounds off to opening the floor to everyone.)
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link