Hacker News Reader

Comment by boshalfoshal | Hacker News Reader

This is just completely false lol. They most certainly can make better models - why cant people here just read this for face value? I think anthropic is legitimately concerned about the safety implications of stronger models. Race dynamics necessitate that they make better and better models, which they clearly think is bad.

They have an internal model which could solve a millenium problem end to end with no intervention, whereas current available models can't. They can clearly make better models. Not everything these guys say is some 500iq game theory optimal 4D chess PR or subterfuge strategy.

View on HN

> which they clearly think is bad

These are companies with huge amounts of money invested in them. Their main responsibility is to their investors. If building better models (or making more money from the models they already have) would increase returns, they would do it. So they clearly can’t do it right now.

Climate change hasn’t stopped the oil industry, and concerns about forever chemicals haven’t stopped the chemical industry. Companies don’t usually give up profitable opportunities just because they might be harmful or kill us all in the long term..

I think you fundamentally misunderstand what kind of company Anthropic is. I'm simply taking the path of least resistance when understanding what people at Anthropic have to say, and basically every public source points to Anthropic talking the talk as well as walking the walk with regards to AI safety and their ideas on AI governance.

Re the point on returning shareholder value, Anthropic is a PBC:

> Public Benefit Purpose: Under Delaware law, a PBC allows directors to legally weigh social and public good alongside maximizing profit for stockholders

Investors surely know this and Anthropic probably has pretty reasonable legal grounds to stand on if they chose to prioritize safety over profits.

Seems pretty clear to me that this is in earnest.

Oh I am terribly sorry, did not know Anthropic was formed as a a “Good Company”. Which changes everything ever.

Snark aside, maybe I’m too pessimistic and you are correct on this. But.. doesn’t that mean we are completely fucked? If they don’t have any ulterior motive and they truly are panicking.. We should start packing.

yes that is literally why they are sounding the alarm - because people think AI is a party trick and they aren't taking it seriously enough.

The decision to found Anthropic to compete with OpenAI's then concentration of SOTA LLM AI researchers, and then achieving/surpassing parity with OpenAI is pretty much directly responsible for creating the current capabilities arms race.

Google has shown they are not motivated at all to push the bigger and bigger SOTA frontier with Mythos-type super models. Even OpenAI isn't really even trying to surpass Anthropic at the top of the market, preferring to keep pace in benchmarks but at lower costs to serve. Anthropic with Mythos is now more or less alone in aggressively pushing the ceiling for the most "super-intelligent" models current computing can support.

It has made them and their investors a gigantic pile of money, but we're really supposed to believe their contribution to that arms race (which they now describe as a threat to humanity) has always been completely altruistic and that their corporate structure inherently makes self-interested decision making impossible?

If you've read enough lesswrong, this won't be new to you. The strategy always was "become the most capable model lab so that you have leverage to control AI development."

> why cant people here just read this for face value?

Because that would be foolish.

What part of public good is stealing giant corpuses from their owners and selling them back to them? People who show contempt for laws do so pretty consistently usually.

It's really sad that people fall for this stuff over and over again.

Ok and they just released Opus 5.5 today which is at or above Fable 5.1 level capability in many tasks, but costs a fraction of the cost and is faster? And this is what, like 3 months after Fable was first released, and 3 weeks after Fable 5.1?

Please tell me models are not improving at breakneck speed.

> why cant people here just read this for face value?

Why should we? Yes, reading the comments, it seems like the IT (or maybe it's just the AI) community has taken up an attitude of simply believing our Dear Tech Leader's by their word. What happened?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com