SB-1047. Anthropic lobbied hard to water down the bill, attempted to kill it, and only performed better than other AI companies due to internal pressure.
Even this single thing alone seems basically unforgiveable.
I’d score these subclaims as complicated, false, and false—complicated because I think Anthropic’s proposals were to move from a strong but non-viable bill towards a weaker but viable approach, which was vetoed anyway.
(I appreciate you commenting; and I’m probably not going to try to evaluate your claims, because I’m not trying to be an expert in this stuff; but
I would suggest linking to an explanation of this;
I think it would be valuable for someone to evaluate this in more detail.
E.g. I’m pretty skeptical for lay-reasons like “Really? If one of the 3ish major companies strongly supported the bill, that wouldn’t much increase its chances of getting passed?” and “Really? But couldn’t they have still said the bill was best as-is?” and “Really? How are you / how was Anthropic leadership so confident the bill wasn’t viable?” and “Really? We’re still doing this ‘play it cool’ strategy instead of just saying what we think would be good to do?” and “Wow, one of the top companies somehow figured out a way to rationalize not supporting regulating themselves even though they nobly said they would support that and they are such amazing homies, what an incredible surprise”. But I could imagine lacking some context that makes the decision seem better.)
Is there a short summary that you’d be willing to undersign, regarding the intentions / efforts of Anthropic leadership around regulation? E.g.
To my knowledge, Anthropic leadership has so far always done their best efforts to increase the amount of regulation of AI research that would slow down capabilities progress.
Even this single thing alone seems basically unforgiveable.
I’d score these subclaims as complicated, false, and false—complicated because I think Anthropic’s proposals were to move from a strong but non-viable bill towards a weaker but viable approach, which was vetoed anyway.
(I appreciate you commenting; and I’m probably not going to try to evaluate your claims, because I’m not trying to be an expert in this stuff; but
I would suggest linking to an explanation of this;
I think it would be valuable for someone to evaluate this in more detail.
E.g. I’m pretty skeptical for lay-reasons like “Really? If one of the 3ish major companies strongly supported the bill, that wouldn’t much increase its chances of getting passed?” and “Really? But couldn’t they have still said the bill was best as-is?” and “Really? How are you / how was Anthropic leadership so confident the bill wasn’t viable?” and “Really? We’re still doing this ‘play it cool’ strategy instead of just saying what we think would be good to do?” and “Wow, one of the top companies somehow figured out a way to rationalize not supporting regulating themselves even though they nobly said they would support that and they are such amazing homies, what an incredible surprise”. But I could imagine lacking some context that makes the decision seem better.)
Yes, politics at this level is definitely an area where you need both non-layman expertise, and a lot of specific context.
Is there a short summary that you’d be willing to undersign, regarding the intentions / efforts of Anthropic leadership around regulation? E.g.
Or something like that.