Well, it does feel useful to make public claims about the state of dangerous capabilities so that people can orient accordingly. But I’m trying to make the point here that, if you make these public claims, you should do it through independent third parties who provide irrefutable evidence.
I think you should specify which subgroup of the ‘public’ is important to keep informed and credulous of claims of cyber risks.
For brevity, I would like to provide a highly uncharitable characterization of the circumstances:
previously, only the Really Dumb People (that is, the majority of Americans who hate AI for frivolous reasons) did not understand e.g. AI coding capabilities, but the Normal People (common AI users) did, because it was accessible / legibly proven.
Mythos caused many Normal AI Users to stop believing in capabilities, because they were published in a biased and untrustworthy manner. This will cause AI Safety to loose in public polling.
I assume there is some obvious flaw with this framing, and hope you may helpfully point it out. But if it happens to be accurate, then I feel it would reflect a gross overestimation of the causal impact of Anthropic’s comms on disbelief, of the ability of people to judge ostensibly irrefutable evidence of model capabilities, and of the political relevance of the particular sphere of people who mislabelled Mythos as a fundraiser.
Well, it does feel useful to make public claims about the state of dangerous capabilities so that people can orient accordingly. But I’m trying to make the point here that, if you make these public claims, you should do it through independent third parties who provide irrefutable evidence.
I think you should specify which subgroup of the ‘public’ is important to keep informed and credulous of claims of cyber risks.
For brevity, I would like to provide a highly uncharitable characterization of the circumstances:
previously, only the Really Dumb People (that is, the majority of Americans who hate AI for frivolous reasons) did not understand e.g. AI coding capabilities, but the Normal People (common AI users) did, because it was accessible / legibly proven.
Mythos caused many Normal AI Users to stop believing in capabilities, because they were published in a biased and untrustworthy manner. This will cause AI Safety to loose in public polling.
I assume there is some obvious flaw with this framing, and hope you may helpfully point it out.
But if it happens to be accurate, then I feel it would reflect a gross overestimation of the causal impact of Anthropic’s comms on disbelief, of the ability of people to judge ostensibly irrefutable evidence of model capabilities, and of the political relevance of the particular sphere of people who mislabelled Mythos as a fundraiser.