Hacker News Reader

In this case, who holds the agency is exactly the point. Anthropic and OAI are claiming we need protection from AI itself, but the statement supported by putting agency in the right place is that we need protection from them.

View on HN

I think those companies are referring to other companies - say Chinese AI companies - who we also need protection from.

"We" need protection from, or "OpenAI and Anthroptic's dreams of profits" need protection from?

I think that AI is dangerous and could be used as a weapon.

So yes, I would like to be protected from all parties. I don't think that's nuts.

IMO anyone sane wants some protection right now. The Q is whether we should seek protection through post-hoc accountability, or preemptive bans/certification on certain tech. Both methods will have a hard time stopping foreign actors, but preemptive bans have the added harm of locking in winners and paradoxically making us slower to develop more reliable and aligned systems. If regulation sets a standard for sufficient alignment, what further motivation is there to go beyond?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com