That’s a very good heuristic. I bet even Anthropic agrees with it. Anthropic did not release their newer models until OpenAI released ChatGPT and the race had already started.
That’s not a small sacrifice. Maybe if they released it sooner, they would be bigger than OpenAI right now due to the first mover advantage.
I believe they want the best for humanity, but they are in a no-win situation, and it’s a very tough choice what they should do. If they stop trying to compete, the other AI labs will build AGI just as fast, and they will lose all their funds. If they compete, they can make things better.
AI safety spending is only $0.1 billion while AI capabilities spending is $200 billion. A company which adds a comparable amount of effort on both AI alignment and AI capabilities should speed up the former more than the latter.
Even if they don’t support all the regulations you believe in, they’re the big AI company supporting relatively much more regulation than all the others.
I don’t know, I may be wrong. Sadly it is so very hard to figure out what’s good or bad for humanity in this uncertain time.
I don’t think that most people, upon learning that Anthropic’s justification was “other companies were already putting everyone’s lives at risk, so our relative contribution to the omnicide was low” would then want to abstain from rioting. Common ethical intuitions are often more deontological than that, more like “it’s not okay to risk extinction, period.” That Anthropic aims to reduce the risk of omnicide on the margin is not, I suspect, the point people would focus on if they truly grokked the stakes; I think they’d overwhelmingly focus on the threat to their lives that all AGI companies (including Anthropic) are imposing.
Regarding common ethical intuitions, I think people in the post singularity world (or afterlife, for the sake of argument) will be far more forgiving of Anthropic. They will understand, even if Anthropic (and people like me) turned out wrong, and actually were a net negative for humanity.
Many ordinary people (maybe most) would have done the same thing in their shoes.
Ordinary people do not follow the utilitarianism that the awkward people here follow. Ordinary people also do not follow deontology or anything that’s the opposite of utilitarianism. Ordinary people just follow their direct moral feelings. If Anthropic was honestly trying to make the future better, they won’t feel that outraged at their “consequentialism.” They may be outraged an perceived incompetence, but Anthropic definitely won’t be the only one accused of incompetence.
That’s a very good heuristic. I bet even Anthropic agrees with it. Anthropic did not release their newer models until OpenAI released ChatGPT and the race had already started.
That’s not a small sacrifice. Maybe if they released it sooner, they would be bigger than OpenAI right now due to the first mover advantage.
I believe they want the best for humanity, but they are in a no-win situation, and it’s a very tough choice what they should do. If they stop trying to compete, the other AI labs will build AGI just as fast, and they will lose all their funds. If they compete, they can make things better.
AI safety spending is only $0.1 billion while AI capabilities spending is $200 billion. A company which adds a comparable amount of effort on both AI alignment and AI capabilities should speed up the former more than the latter.
Even if they don’t support all the regulations you believe in, they’re the big AI company supporting relatively much more regulation than all the others.
I don’t know, I may be wrong. Sadly it is so very hard to figure out what’s good or bad for humanity in this uncertain time.
I don’t think that most people, upon learning that Anthropic’s justification was “other companies were already putting everyone’s lives at risk, so our relative contribution to the omnicide was low” would then want to abstain from rioting. Common ethical intuitions are often more deontological than that, more like “it’s not okay to risk extinction, period.” That Anthropic aims to reduce the risk of omnicide on the margin is not, I suspect, the point people would focus on if they truly grokked the stakes; I think they’d overwhelmingly focus on the threat to their lives that all AGI companies (including Anthropic) are imposing.
Regarding common ethical intuitions, I think people in the post singularity world (or afterlife, for the sake of argument) will be far more forgiving of Anthropic. They will understand, even if Anthropic (and people like me) turned out wrong, and actually were a net negative for humanity.
Many ordinary people (maybe most) would have done the same thing in their shoes.
Ordinary people do not follow the utilitarianism that the awkward people here follow. Ordinary people also do not follow deontology or anything that’s the opposite of utilitarianism. Ordinary people just follow their direct moral feelings. If Anthropic was honestly trying to make the future better, they won’t feel that outraged at their “consequentialism.” They may be outraged an perceived incompetence, but Anthropic definitely won’t be the only one accused of incompetence.