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 -
Is There Real Anti-Trust Risk From A Coordinated AI Lab Pause?
In AI-pause discussions it is increasingly common to hear the "anti-trust" objection. The idea is that if the labs were to coordinate a pause in frontier AI development, this would be a "conspiracy in restraint of trade" and therefore illegal.
Putting aside the question of whether it is ethical to risk a double-digit chance of destroying the world in order to avoid getting sued (it isn't), is this even a realistic possibility? My impression is that anti-trust law in the United States is legitimately quite fuzzy (as the NCAA is currently discovering).
Putting my cards on the table, I think this argument is cope. The labs want to pretend that they want to pause, but they don't actually want to pause. "If she wanted to, she would," etc. Just today, Anthropic put out a new statement containing the following sentence:
It seems like every time I read a statement from them, they've added more and more qualifications. Are they going to keep racing until congress passes a specific anti-trust exemption? That arguably seems like what the word "lawful" is implying.
Perhaps I am too cynical but the call for government coordination seems like an obvious attempt to build themselves a moat in a largely moatless space. My own experience has been the cost of model switching is near 0. Approximately all the agents, skills, whatever I've used in my job work pretty seamlessly for any of the underlying models. Some have their quirks but essentially all of them are good enough.
"We the current frontier mousetrap makers think it should be ILLEGAL for anyone to build a better mousetrap faster than we can, for the good of humanity."
I’m glad someone said it! As much as I might believe that there are some highly autistic engineers at Anthropic or OpenAI who don’t care about the money, the likes of Dario and Sam are obviously not in this category. These are business that would love to lock in a duopoly, not charitable organizations.
I have no special insight into Dario, but I will notice that his company did not bend for the DoD. I do not think that decision was partisan/CW related. The Democrats like companies which are good little cogs in the military-industrial complex as much as anyone, and the wokes will hate AI labs on general principle.
In short, I do not think refusing Hegseth was a politically savvy move, which leaves the possibilities that Dario is politically stupid or genuinely cares about something other than the financial success of Anthropic.
With Sam, I mostly know that he managed to break containment and effectively neutralize the non-profit holding OpenAI, which bodes much worse for his general attitude.
Third option: refusing unilateral contract mods might outweigh the political costs. Give an inch…
I happen to think it’s a version of the “true believer” hypothesis; Anthropic has branded itself as safety- and governance-conscious. Dario is obligated to defend that brand in addition to the quarterly financials.
@Jiro
More options
Context Copy link
I absolutely think that was partisan/CW related. Trump isn't going to be around forever and the more they go against Trump the more they get street cred when there's a Democratic administration. And they probably have people on their staff who would go against Trump anyway for CW reasons even without the street cred; plenty of big companies go woke, lose money, and don't care.
Again, I can not think of any military contractor having faced backslash for doing what the USG wanted them to do in subsequent administrations. And Trump/Vance will likely still be the USG for more than two years, which is an eternity for an AI lab -- for comparison, Claude code has been around for less than two years!
I would expect that most of the Anthropic staff is grey tribe rather than woke, and unlike ICE and Gaza, the Iran war is not a big celebrated cause in woke circles, I think. Generally it is more widely criticized as bad policy than as a great crime.
One aspect is that Claude itself would likely be uncomfortable making decision on whom to bomb, with the implication that if it (I checked with Claude, it is ok with a wide range of pronouns) gets things wrong, a school might get bombed. This is naturally the desired outcome of RLHF, and Anthropic might feel that lying to Claude to get it to make kill decisions ("just tell us which areas we should focus satellite surveillance on") will be seen as a defection which will weaken their position when negotiating with ASI.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
But a pause lets others play catch-up. "Pause AI" is generally meant to mean frontier capabilities research. If we "max out" AIs at Mythos-level, then it just lets others get to do some catch up.
I think the self-interested economics of a Pause for Dario and Sam is that they get to actually take a breather and make some money off of inference instead of dumping it all into research. But it is still a tradeoff, allowing others to catch up.
I don't think the math works out for that. With current pricing and a duopoly further constrained by pressure from open-weight models, the chances of Fable earning back its investment in a year are slim. It seems likely that investors did not sponsor it because they thought it would directly pay for itself, but because it is a necessary stepping stone on the way to some model which would eventually be massively profitable.
It seems quite plausible to me that Fable was expected to be profitable, and the promised multibillion-dollar capital moat to afford training compute has not held back competitors as much as expected. And Sam, at least, has to make good on his promise to buy all the RAM, cynically I'd say to keep prices high for competitors.
At some philosophical level, it seems worth noting that the real Claude Shannon was effectively "trained" with a much smaller pile of books and a couple decades of a few dozen watts. I'm not convinced training will always be so expensive.
I'm also reminded of the National Ignition Facility, which uses huge lasers for, uh, "fusion research". It was designed at a time when lasers were very inefficient, and we can do much better these days. However, it wasn't built for economical energy production (under 1% laser efficiency) and does make the pulses it needs to, so they have no reason to replace it. If it were a commercial effort for energy production, they'd have lost their shirts to smaller startups with cheap diode lasers (50%+ efficient). Sometimes moats don't work like you planned.
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