Anthropic is... making the US government shut down their flagship model on purpose? The conspiratorial thinking on HN is approaching UFO subreddit levels.
It's so difficult to have rational AI discussion here anymore. Half (or more?) of the developer community seems to have some form of AI hysteria that causes them to throw all logic out the window in service of the magical machine god.
I don't see how one could possibly come to that conclusion, except by rejecting out of hand the idea that there could be a true threat requiring genuine caution.
None, but the executive branch doesn't have any power to summarily prohibit American citizens from using dangerous things. If the danger checks out and can't be mitigated then Congress will have to pass a law.
Are you asking somebody what evidence they have that their observations are wrong? Like “I see you have an opinion there. What facts are you aware of that disprove it?”
No, I'm asking whether it's a fact-based opinion or a subjective one.
For example, I think that plant based meat is pretty much a dead end in the consumer market, but I can imagine things that would convince me I'm wrong about that. We could see sales of plant based meat skyrocket one year, or we could see a major beef producer announce that it's cutting 50% of the workforce in response to plant based meat, or we could see someone invent a new process that tastes much better. So I'd be interested to hear what someone who disagrees has to say, and perhaps they might convince me.
I also think that chocolate ice cream is bad. But there's nothing you could tell me to convince me that actually chocolate ice cream is good, because that opinion is not about external facts in the world, it's about me and what I like. If you tried I'd roll my eyes and ignore you.
So you see why it's an important distinction. If the original commenter was trying to say that they have specific factual beliefs about how dangerous the models are, we might be able to have a productive discussion about it. If they only meant to say that they personally don't wish to think about the potential dangers of AI models, then there's no point in continuing.
Is there any evidence, anything whatsoever, that they actually are so powerful?
Maybe. Maybe not.
His point is that Anthropic is likely doing this on purpose for their own IPO and to counter the other IPOs.
Anthropic is... making the US government shut down their flagship model on purpose? The conspiratorial thinking on HN is approaching UFO subreddit levels.
It's so difficult to have rational AI discussion here anymore. Half (or more?) of the developer community seems to have some form of AI hysteria that causes them to throw all logic out the window in service of the magical machine god.
I don't see how one could possibly come to that conclusion, except by rejecting out of hand the idea that there could be a true threat requiring genuine caution.
> rejecting out of hand the idea that there could be a true threat requiring genuine caution.
What true threat could possibly exist where the models are perfectly fine to use, just only by American citizens?
None, but the executive branch doesn't have any power to summarily prohibit American citizens from using dangerous things. If the danger checks out and can't be mitigated then Congress will have to pass a law.
They didn't say they are. They said it is PR which is a type of marketing which has to do with perception not reality.
Are you asking somebody what evidence they have that their observations are wrong? Like “I see you have an opinion there. What facts are you aware of that disprove it?”
No, I'm asking whether it's a fact-based opinion or a subjective one.
For example, I think that plant based meat is pretty much a dead end in the consumer market, but I can imagine things that would convince me I'm wrong about that. We could see sales of plant based meat skyrocket one year, or we could see a major beef producer announce that it's cutting 50% of the workforce in response to plant based meat, or we could see someone invent a new process that tastes much better. So I'd be interested to hear what someone who disagrees has to say, and perhaps they might convince me.
I also think that chocolate ice cream is bad. But there's nothing you could tell me to convince me that actually chocolate ice cream is good, because that opinion is not about external facts in the world, it's about me and what I like. If you tried I'd roll my eyes and ignore you.
So you see why it's an important distinction. If the original commenter was trying to say that they have specific factual beliefs about how dangerous the models are, we might be able to have a productive discussion about it. If they only meant to say that they personally don't wish to think about the potential dangers of AI models, then there's no point in continuing.
>So you see why it's an important distinction.
No it isn’t. Your treatment of the word ‘opinion’ is wrong. Opinions are subjective, you can’t construct a gotcha out of pretending otherwise.