Hacker News Reader

Comment by JohnMakin | Hacker News Reader

I didn't want to keep editing my comment so I am replying to it, so much of this document makes me angry:

> Before we can align a model with human values, we must consider what those values should be.

Ok, so you believe that 1) this technology will become so powerful as to surpass humans in pretty much every imaginable way, so much so that you see it as an existential threat to humanity itself, and 2) that you see yourself as a responsible steward to avoiding bad outcomes, but 3), that you need to be the arbiter of what human values should be?

How fucking arrogant, pardon my language. My god.

View on HN

Are you sure the "we" there is Anthropic, or is it humanity as a whole?

Why would a for profit company beholden to shareholders listen to anything but their own financial interests? Has this ever happened in recent memory?

Substitute anthropic/claude with exxon mobil/oil and see how crazy this sounds.

No one group or individual should be saddled with deciding what the “correct” human values should be. That’s literally what religion does.

OK, you got me to look at the context:

> Before we can align a model with human values, we must consider what those values should be. In 2023, we defined our intentions and goals for Claude’s behavior in a constitution, which we have refined over time. In January 2026, we published a new version under an open license so others could adapt it.

Seems like they're pointing out a pretty uncontroversial fact: if you're building a model and want it to be aligned with some set of values, one of the first things you need to do is determine the set of values. So are you arguing that (1) Anthropic shouldn't be trying to align models, (2) Anthropic shouldn't be trying to build models at all, (3) the values described in the relevant documents are bad, (4) there should have been a democratic process determining the values that Anthropic would be allowed to try to instill in their models, or something else?

I don't understand. Human values are not universal, don't they have to be the arbiter? Isn't that all that statement is saying?

A for profit company with shareholders designing technology they think will take over the world and run most if not all of humanity, is deciding for itself what human values should be doesn't set off any alarm bells?

They have to decide what "human values" their model is going to be adapted towards. Ultimately, they have to decide that, even if they choose an outside source. How else are they supposed to do it?

It's even worse; they have to let other people decide what human values their AI will support. What if superintelligence helps terrorists build a prosperous society!

The issue is even bigger than cryptocurrency's KYC problem. We may have to start surveilling and censoring citizens at the thinking-level to prevent misanthropic dissent.

I dunno, maybe democratic input into deciding these values? If these machines are going to be as revolutionary as anthropic says such that they risk killing all of us then I think it is rather important that we don't have a CEO-king deciding this for us.

Why on earth should they be the arbitrer? Do people in SF understand how much the rest of the world despises them with this attitude?

A corporation that needs a gazillion dollars in revenue to survive led by a "rationalist" CEO who thinks that the death of a child is worth 1/4th the death of an adult because children have less complex thoughts will get to decide universal human values for the rest of us. Lovely.

Couldn’t agree more. This is pure elitism, fervently stroking the rod of their own noble justification for why their stewardship is ordained. This is techno-corporate fascism dressed up as the greatest thing that ever happened to you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com