Hacker News Reader

Comment by danpalmer | Hacker News Reader

I don't see the same level of hypocrisy from the other frontier labs.

<rant>

So you (and most everyone else apparently) are upset with one lab that stood up against domestic surveillance, and automated kill chains, even though they knew that would be bad for business?

I suppose if you don't take a stand for safety at all, then you don't take the risk of being called a hypocrite.

</rant>

The same lab whose model is the only documented case of a model being used to kill civilians? The one who's CEO said that 'that is not even a case that we want to ban'?

You really don't think OpenAI restricts their most advanced bio/cyber models similarly? I know for a fact they do. Talk to one of your friends that work there.

I'm not saying they don't restrict them, I'm saying they don't try to both take the moral high ground about it and simultaneously do marketing on the basis of it.

They're not saying "this is an existential risk" while pushing hard on exactly that risk.

Of course they believe it's an existential risk. Maybe not as publicly as Anthropic but it is the dominant belief within OpenAI and they do describe this belief externally with some frequency.

Famously Anthropic exists because OpenAI didn't believe deeply enough in that risk.

I have it on good authority that OpenAI has become pretty existential-risk-pilled over the last month. But yes, it probably doesn't run as deeply in the culture versus Anthropic.

Fair point, it does seem to be changing recently. It seems less religious and more practical than at Anthropic.

It restricts them far, far less. It is much less obnoxious.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com