The guy just took a significant hit and to stand up for civil liberty. He could have gone all in on the "If we don't do it [mass surveillance, fully autonomous weapons], they [China, some more evil AI company] will first" framing and just went with it, but he showed spine instead.
So many political movements, particularly on the left, fail because different fragments fail to meet each others' definition of moral purity, so they can't unite, and become irrelevant. I generally agree with the whole Nonzero framing of things - We face a lot of tragedy-of-the-commons-type problems and need to push in the direction of global cooperation and rule of law to solve them. But it's easy to profess moral purity when you have no power. The reality is, arms-race dynamics are real, and it sometimes IS true that if you don't do it, they will. You need to strike some balance between staying in power and following your principles, otherwise you join the ranks of people powerlessly shouting from distant bleachers. This time it seems Anthropic chose principles over power. Sure you may cynically say this was some kind of clever power-play on their part. But it's definitely the less-bad decision between the two. If you disagree, imagine a world with a Hegseth-controlled superintelligence.
I get that Anthropic is pushing the very "democracy vs autocracy" / "if we don't do it, they will" narrative that Nonzero is against. But when someone you generally disagree with takes an action you agree with - isn't it more productive to praise the agreeable action, rather then use it as an opportunity to slam that person for all the disagreeable things?
Did you read Myth #3 at the bottom of the newsletter, after the graphs? (Though I agree that Amodei is more sincerely committed to building safe AIs than, say, Altman, for what that's worth.)
"the strategy I just summarized ... is completely bonkers for several reasons, including its conduciveness to getting American data centers bombed and Taiwan invaded and the world engulfed in a nuclear fireball" Worry wart.
On the question on the conflict between autocracies and democracies. What is the essential idea of democracy? It is to have a government that cares equally for all people, and also one in which everyone has equal access to. On this fundamental level, so-called autocratic China (and, arguably, Russia, Türkiye, Hungary) are more democratic than special interests captured US (or its vassals UK or Germany). I wish Amodei had a better political education. Except if he is too clever by half, and is trying to conjure a worldwide conflict between good and evil to serve his own interests.
I think the big story is that the US government is using AI for mass surveillance of the American people thus circumventing the 4th amendment. And I don't think this started with Trump.
If Hegseth can't get Claude to do mass surveillance or automate killbots for him, why doesn't he just try "talking to a librarian"?
The guy just took a significant hit and to stand up for civil liberty. He could have gone all in on the "If we don't do it [mass surveillance, fully autonomous weapons], they [China, some more evil AI company] will first" framing and just went with it, but he showed spine instead.
So many political movements, particularly on the left, fail because different fragments fail to meet each others' definition of moral purity, so they can't unite, and become irrelevant. I generally agree with the whole Nonzero framing of things - We face a lot of tragedy-of-the-commons-type problems and need to push in the direction of global cooperation and rule of law to solve them. But it's easy to profess moral purity when you have no power. The reality is, arms-race dynamics are real, and it sometimes IS true that if you don't do it, they will. You need to strike some balance between staying in power and following your principles, otherwise you join the ranks of people powerlessly shouting from distant bleachers. This time it seems Anthropic chose principles over power. Sure you may cynically say this was some kind of clever power-play on their part. But it's definitely the less-bad decision between the two. If you disagree, imagine a world with a Hegseth-controlled superintelligence.
I get that Anthropic is pushing the very "democracy vs autocracy" / "if we don't do it, they will" narrative that Nonzero is against. But when someone you generally disagree with takes an action you agree with - isn't it more productive to praise the agreeable action, rather then use it as an opportunity to slam that person for all the disagreeable things?
Let us give the guy a ton of credit ,for at least trying to inject some moral compass into all this. He is truly concerned about human safety.
Did you read Myth #3 at the bottom of the newsletter, after the graphs? (Though I agree that Amodei is more sincerely committed to building safe AIs than, say, Altman, for what that's worth.)
Amodei stance kept the ethical question of AI in the public discourse. This, by itself, is very valuable.
"the strategy I just summarized ... is completely bonkers for several reasons, including its conduciveness to getting American data centers bombed and Taiwan invaded and the world engulfed in a nuclear fireball" Worry wart.
On the question on the conflict between autocracies and democracies. What is the essential idea of democracy? It is to have a government that cares equally for all people, and also one in which everyone has equal access to. On this fundamental level, so-called autocratic China (and, arguably, Russia, Türkiye, Hungary) are more democratic than special interests captured US (or its vassals UK or Germany). I wish Amodei had a better political education. Except if he is too clever by half, and is trying to conjure a worldwide conflict between good and evil to serve his own interests.
I think the big story is that the US government is using AI for mass surveillance of the American people thus circumventing the 4th amendment. And I don't think this started with Trump.
Wouldn't it be iron if our gung-ho use of AI in wars is what leads it to becoming belligerent and turning on us in the end?