A big argument in this post is that Anthropic’s communications are overly vague, yet it backs this claim up with only quoting two sentences from the RSI blog post.
In the original RSI post, Anthropic actually goes into considerable detail into their position and why they choose their stance given the competitive dynamics that are involved. It is true that they didn’t make hard commitments, but that is fully explainable by the uncertainty and competitive dynamics involved.
The other point here is about the apparent contradictions (“muddying the waters”) this post tries to convey about Anthropic employees’ stated opinions in public appearances. This section reads like bogus to me, as it is perfectly reasonable that one is excited about AI’s benefits and simultaneously wants to reduce the drawbacks, and expresses both to different audiences to find common ground.
They will use this to continue placating all sides, from the accelerationists to the safety-concerned.
However, little will change in terms of actions. The companies are continuing to pursue superintelligence at full speed.
There is a logical contradiction here. Why would AI companies need to “placate all sides” including the accelerationists (per the first sentence), if they are already going full accelerationist anyway (per the second sentence)?
A big argument in this post is that Anthropic’s communications are overly vague, yet it backs this claim up with only quoting two sentences from the RSI blog post.
In the original RSI post, Anthropic actually goes into considerable detail into their position and why they choose their stance given the competitive dynamics that are involved. It is true that they didn’t make hard commitments, but that is fully explainable by the uncertainty and competitive dynamics involved.
The other point here is about the apparent contradictions (“muddying the waters”) this post tries to convey about Anthropic employees’ stated opinions in public appearances. This section reads like bogus to me, as it is perfectly reasonable that one is excited about AI’s benefits and simultaneously wants to reduce the drawbacks, and expresses both to different audiences to find common ground.
There is a logical contradiction here. Why would AI companies need to “placate all sides” including the accelerationists (per the first sentence), if they are already going full accelerationist anyway (per the second sentence)?