Anthropic and Alignment (Ben Thompson)
stratechery.com
stratechery.com
First, everything revolves around a core conceit that "Might makes right". The idea that entities might might push back with the tools at their disposal is treated as a fools errand, you should just acquiesce.
The role of the legislative branch in deciding what private entities are allowed, or not allowed to do is treated as a side note. He equates the dictates of the executive branch as if it was the will of the United States itself, above even the Constitution.
It's dismissive of the rights of private companies and individuals to make decisions for themselves about the actions they take and whether or how they choose to transact within the law with parts of the executive branch.
He acts as if it's a foregone conclusion that every AI company should be considered an arm of the executive branch of the US government. The analogy to nuclear weapons is super flawed, there are multiple laws on the books (written into law by Congress) specifically regulating Nuclear research and development.
And most astonishingly he ends it dropping an implied threat of violence towards Anthropic (and assumedly anyone else who doesn't agree with his point of view):
> I don’t want that, and, more pertinently, the ones with guns aren’t going to tolerate it.
Wow.
Anthropic, like any other US company, should be free to not sell to the government if they don't want to. These other arguments about oversight are nonsense.
"The way to address this new reality, however, is with new laws and through strengthening accountable oversight; cheering or even demanding that an unelected executive decide how and where such powerful capabilities can be used is the road an even more despotic future."
But I think you drastically misunderstood the point of this article. Ben is pointing out the implications of Amodei's analogy of advanced AI being like nuclear weapons. The government has a monopoly on nuclear weapons and has extreme regulations and oversight on the companies that help build nuclear weapons for it. And those companies do not tell the government how or when they can use the nukes.
So if advanced AI is like nuclear weapons, why can an unelected executive tell a democratically elected government how to use it?
Here, I think we're talking about the opposite, right? Private developed, then gov't used. It's so obvious in the first path that gov't would remain in the control, but I'm not sure how to think about what's "right" in the private-to-gov't path.
Govt creates something: you see that tight control from the beginning. Makes logical sense.
Private company creates something gov't sees as a threat: private companies are allowed to express opinions and make decisions irrespective of threat or not, right?
One example I'm thinking of: Apple's stand on cracking devices. Gov't wants to crack into a phone and Apple won't do it for them without right measures in place. I think Apple SHOULD be able to make that call. Whether it's right or wrong is still murky.
If you listen to the interview, Dario is talking about the Trump trade deal with Nvidia being allowed to sell H200 chips to China, but the USA gets some taxes. He thinks it’s a bad deal for long term national security. He likens it to “selling NK nuclear weapons and bragging that the casings are made by Boeing”.
It’s not about AI/nukes being equivalents- it’s about making a bad deal with a rival, giving them something they want / reducing your superiority, just so you can brag about having made a deal.
If Ford sells Broncos, and Pete Hegseth says “I’m Batman, we want them with RPG launchers”, Ford is not required to create Bronco’s with RPG launchers.
If Pete wants AI killer robots and AI domestic mass surveillance tools, he can go put out a RFQ like literally any other DOD DARPA project in history and get bids.
Dario criticized the Trump admin policy of allowing Nvidia to sell advanced chipsets to China as being poor for long term national security. He said our model edge is dependent on the HW edge, and likened this Trump “deal” to selling nuclear weapons to NK and bragging that the casings were made by Boeing. You can go watch the video yourself.
He was attacking the Trump trade deal as being bad, and characterizing Trump as more concerned with being able to name drop a US company and say he made a great deal, rather than actually doing what is in the best interest of the country.
Do you just believe everything you read on the internet? Or was it Ben the bloggers amazing credentials of being an Apple INTERN in the company culture group? He’s a real philosopher king I’m sure.
Also - I'm surprised the government didn't say "ok" and then use Claude (as they wished) anyways. Don't know the details and am oversimplfying, but seems like a plausible path without much recourse/oversight.
And that might be a compelling argument if the rule of law hadn’t been throw out the window. If secret courts didn’t exist. If “laws” couldn’t be twisted into pretzel or just outright ignored. If things, oh you know, like the name of the department he invokes throughout this article, could only be changed by the elected Congress instead of unilaterally changed by a mad king. Yeah, maybe then your article would hold water.
What an incredibly naive take on the current state of affairs.