1,013 karma · joined June 9, 2023
What exactly are you claiming is false about my statement?
The list you presented are mistakes Anthropic made or cases when they put their own interests ahead of users, but I don't see how it disproves the point I was making. None of those are examples of embedding backdoors or stealing secrets to take over or sabotage a system. They are categorically different than what I'm asking about.
I feel like the industry hasn't solved that alignment problem yet... We have no way to verify the entire models landscape of intent.
Paid models have an incentive not to do that because if the market discovers it there is a huge economy penalty, but the free open source models don't have that disincentive.
> it's an extreme increase in money
> The conscious thinking is more like an agentic harness, while the subconscious work is like what a very big LLM does.
I would go further and just say the conscious thinking is the user. The harness is more like an interface that increases thinking throughput between the user and model. The harness is what makes the model more like an extension of the user's brain and less like a separate entity.
Judgement blocks curiosity.
Also pro or anti capitalism has nothing to do with what is going on in America. I know a lot of people like to think it does, but the reason all the wealth is transferring from laborers to asset holders is due to the specific implementation of the US economic system that has existed mostly since coming off the gold standard. It's not capitalism, it's the petrodollar and US banking system. Lots of other countries harness capitalism in other ways and don't have the problems the US has. The US government is subservient to the financial industry...
That's the thing, is these issues are really complex, and you have an opportunity on a site like this to be curious and inch closer to the truth but that won't happen if you sit in judgement, because judgement blocks curiosity.
The brainstem also happens to have the greatest diversity of kinds of neurons, and is the oldest in terms of evolutionary biology. This lends to the idea that all creatures are conscious but humans are conscious of more things (via the cortex). Basically the cortex expands consciousness but the brainstorm is the source of it.
It's also worth noting that modern LLMs architecture are a lot closer in kind to the cortex and are dramatically different (simpler) than the brainstem. This can maybe afford some optimism that AI may be more likely to extend human consciousness than replace it, at least for a long while. (Even if it's not evenly distributed...)
> taking Citizen's United as the status quo for how we should run society
I hope you're not implying that's what I meant.
Acting like this is new or specific to Elon is either misleading or naive.
The way we measure inflation is focused on consumption goods that everyone depends on. It doesn't take into account the stock market.
In other words we could stay around 3% in measured inflation but see ~30% annual equity inflation...
So my point is that the most valuable companies in 20 years could be worth hundreds of trillions while the cost of a can of beans is like $5, not $200.
Zimbabwe type inflation happens when the economy doesn't get more efficient at producing stuff as fast as the government prints money. If the economy increases efficiency very quickly and the government prints money to peg at 2% inflation, the products we consume only increase a little bit while scarce assets increase a lot.
This is why in the time I took a can of beans to increase in price 3x a house increased 20x.
So you're absolutely correct about the comparison.
That said, I bet whatever happens over the next 20 years goes beyond what any of us can imagine. I wouldn't be surprised if the winners of this paradigm are worth hundreds of trillions. Sounds ridiculous until you look backwards and valuation a and consider this is an exponential curve and time is compressing.
If I type in the name of a company so that I can navigate to their website, and I have to scroll past my whole viewport of other companies bidding to be placed above where I'm trying to go, I learn it's faster for me to just type the website address into the bar instead of going via Google.
They designed a UX that made my life easier and caused me to form a habit, and then broke that UX for money causing me to form a new habit.
It's just one example of dozens, but the consequence is that I see 95% fewer Google ads than I used to. My guess I am on the leading edge (along with many others on this forum) of a wave of change of user behavior that spells pessimism for Google search revenue.
I remember that morning when almost every channel was replaying it. I remember watching live when the second plane hit.
I didn't understand the long term implications then, but I remember hearing things other people said who clearly did understand. It wasn't about the towers or the death, it was about the attack on trust and the long term impact that would have on individual people's choices that made up the broader culture.
Like a stick in the spokes of a continent sized bike that takes decades to flip over.
Values drive behavior. Who owns / runs futurism and what are their values?
Journalism / media as activity needs to be sustainable and unfortunately in our current world it's seems very difficult to sustainably remain high integrity. Sometimes it may be greed, but most of the time I think it's survival.
In this case AI is part of what is threatening journalist survivability, so it kind of makes sense.
I can think for myself, and I don't need you, or Reuters, to think for me, thank you.
Maybe I'm being chastised and down voted by real people who take offense to encouraging study and critical thinking about information that impacts financial decisions on a website with community guidelines that encourages intellectual curiosity, or maybe I'm being attacked by LLM bots in a time when it's never been cheaper or easier to do so.
Youre riding a fine line between being curious and sealioning. If you're actually curious, try asking another way.
Hmmm...
My advice: if you actually want to know the truth of what is going on, get a general understanding of finance and read the actual financial statements/filings and their disclaimers. It's very easy to write articles like this that cherry pick certain numbers out of context to support a specific narrative. Reuters is in the process of liquidating their reputation in the same way that forbes and business insider and many others publications have.
What do you mean exactly?
Haven't all other technologies also impacted most people in many areas of their lives? How is AI different?
What exactly are you proposing?
All that said, my instinct is that the unprecedented context of Anthropic's IPO is not enough of a reason to prevent it from doing said IPO. If anthropic has insufficient capital and is operating at a significant loss, with no way to model a transition to profitability, or is over-valued, those are reasons I can understand.
My issue with the existential risk reason, is that there is also a risk that anthropic disrupts and deflates multiple industries while capturing that value for itself. If the public are blocked from participating in it's success, that is also a risk to the public. To people who are skeptical about AI and assume this is all a big scam I'm sure what I'm saying sounds delusional or like ajoke... But what I struggle with is how the logic can run one way but not the other.
Given the unprecedented potential impact at stake, the risks, the potential rewards, and the risks of not participating in the potential rewards, all seem similarly unprecedented.
Is this just a case of someone assuming the risks far outweigh the rewards? Is it that simple?
Is this weighting based on vibes?
Can anyone pull this apart for me?
I predict that this is not going to last much longer itf institutions continue to avoid holding students accountable for egregious acts of academic misconduct.
Every time they choose student tuition over maintaining the integrity of the credentials the value of the credentials as a screen drops a little bit. At some point it will fall below a threshold, and then at some point afterwards the rest of society will realize it.
I miss the times when things were a lot less politicized
My mental model - for better or worse - is that intelligence has both shape and area, and LLMs are orders of magnitude smaller area but very different shape, and they have more intelligence area in the kind that humans have lesser of.
So yes very different, more in some material ways and lesser in others, but in total intelligence are still orders of magnitude lesser.
My gp comment was acknowledging that when you scale up many instances / brute force problems it confuses that "total area" claim a bit.
To follow the anthropomorphization... 1000 toddlers may have more total intelligence than a grown man, but does that matter?
The problem with these discussions probably/usually fold into differing/loose definitions of intelligence.
In other domains I have seen first hand overwhelming evidence of how things that cause the AI to make mistakes also cause humans to make the same mistakes.
I wonder if the proofs being produced that are hard for humans to interpret are also hard for other LLMs to interpret.
In other words, I wonder if humans are still much better at compressing understanding into proofs than the best LLMs, and what it will take for LLMs to exceed them.
It kind of an explicit example of how the LLMs can be materially less intelligent than people, but still be more productive through scaling, and yet they also can't replace people because they are a categorically different kind of intelligence. It's like all the AI debates compressed into one example showing countwr-intuitive answers.
What if the bottleneck is physical chips and data centers and power and only so much can be squeezed out of algorithms?
What if AI seems more impressive than it is, because the things it is good at happens to be hard for us, and it's hard for us because it's new to us (processing lots of abstract information), but the things that we are good at (manipulating physical world) are objectively orders of magnitude harder?