no comments (yet)

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
there doesn't seem to be anything here
35 comments in c/technology@lemmy.world view that post
[+] 114 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 86 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Translation: "All y'all gonna get sued so hard one day. I'm out, I got paid $74 million last year."

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 80 points 9 months ago* (1 child)

    If I got paid $74M a year, I would work one year.

    I get it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 20 points 9 months ago

    Yup, imagine spending max $4 million in living expenses that year, investing the rest. Even a 1% APY would give you $700,000 in interest every year for the rest of your life.

    Many CDs offer 3% APY risk-free, which would give you $2.1 million per year. A managed mutual fund can get you 5%-10% APY without even assuming too much risk.

    There's no fucking reason anyone needs a billion dollars, let alone ten or a hundred billion.

    Even ten million, and you're set for life...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 9 months ago

    The world is in peril. And not just from AI, or bioweapons, but from a whole series of interconnected crises unfolding in this very moment,

    I feel that. If I had the means I'd probably fuckoff to some forest cabin at this point.

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 9 months ago

    Good for him. My best years were spent not working and doing my own thing. It’s a shame that for some it only comes in retirement, while others never experience it.

  • source
  • [–] 46 points 9 months ago* (7 children)

    FWIW, Anthropic did just fund a pro-regulation super PAC to oppose OpenAI's/Plantir's pro-Trump/anti-regulation PAC, and:

    The Pentagon is at odds with artificial-intelligence developer Anthropic over safeguards that would prevent the government from deploying its technology to target weapons autonomously and conduct U.S. domestic surveillance. Reuters

    But I kinda doubt they'll be able to play the good guy for long.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    The regulations this PAC promotes are almost laughable. Do they mention CSAM generation? Deepfakes? Pollution? Water table destruction? Suicide encouragement? Nope.

    Those harms are apparently acceptable.

    Instead, they say we should focus on "the nearest-term high risks: AI-enabled biological weapons and cyberattacks." Sci-fi fiction.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)

    They're advocating for transparency and for states to be able to have their own AI laws. I see that as positive. And as part of that transparency, Anthropic publishes its system prompts, which go through with every message. They devote a significant portion to mental health, suicide prevention, not enabling mania, etc. So I wouldn't say they see it as "acceptable."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    If Anthropic actually wants to prevent self-harm and CSAM through regulation, why didn't they recommend regulating those things?

    Anthropic executive Jason Clinton harassed LGBT Discord users, so forgive me if I don't take their PR at face value. No AI Corpo is your friend, which is a lesson I thought we had learned from Sam Altman and Elon Musk already.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    So what I meant by "doubt they’ll be able to play the good guy for long" is exactly that no corpo is your friend. But I also believe perfect is the enemy of good, or at least better. I want to encourage companies to be better, knowing full well that they will not be perfect. Since Anthropic doesn't make image/video/audio generators, they may just not see CSAM as a directly related concern for the company. A PAC doesn't have to address every harm to be a source of good.

    As for self-harm, that's an alignment concern, the main thing they do research on. And based on what they've published, they know that perfect alignment is not in our foreseeable future. They've made a lot of recent improvements that make it demonstrably harder to push a bot to dark traits. But they know damn well they can't prevent it without some structural breakthroughs. And who knows if those will ever come?

    I read that 404 media piece when it got posted here, and this is also probably that guy's fault. And frankly, Dario's energy creeps me out. I'm not putting Anthropic on a pedestal here, they're just... the least bad... for now?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago*

    The outlandish claim that AI will create a bioweapon is also an "alignment concern"... But Anthropic lists that one out explicitly, while ignoring real-world, present-day harms.

    That's why the "AI safety" lobby is a joke. They only address fictional concerns, because those concerns assume that their product is powerful and potentially profitable. Addressing real-world harms would force them to admit that maybe their product isn't all that great.

    (I guess I'll take your word about whatever the Rationalists are talking about on LessWrong. That site has already spawned enough examples of what happens when you take AI apocalypse ideology to the extreme...)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago

    This is how I feel. I'm enjoying Claude and paying but keeping a close eye. Its nice because it really enables me to do things I am not capable of on my own. I teach as part of my job and used it to code an interactive learning module. Making the module hasn't been quick and I have to babysit the content a lot to get what I want. But I never could have done it on my own and I never could have paid someone to make it for me and it's helping educate people. I see this as the correct use of AI.

    But if anthrioic goes pure evil I'll cancel my subscription.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    This is literally the plot of Player Piano by Kurt Vonnegut. Interesting that he was able to predict it that far ahead.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 9 months ago (7 children)

    I'm going to throw my own thoughts in on this. I got into machine learning around 2015, back when relu activations were still bleeding edge innovations, and got out around 2020 for honestly pretty similar reasons.

    Emotions can and have been used as optimisation targets. Engagement is an ever present target. And in the framework of capitalism, one optimisation targets rules above all others; alignment with continued use. It's part of what leads to the bootlicking LLM phenomenon. For the average human, it drives future engagement.

    The real danger isn't the newer language models, or anything really to do with neural net architecture; rather, it's the fact that we've found that a simple function minimisation strategy can be used to approximate otherwise intractable functions. The deeper you research, the more clear it becomes that any arbitrary objective can be optimised, given a suitable function approximator and enough data to fit the approximator accurately.

    Human minds are also universal function approximators.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago (6 children)
  • [–] 14 points 9 months ago* (1 child)

    Pretty much what people already know by now. Algorithms find optimal ways to manipulate you.

    The two ingredients are data and a way to measure the thing you're trying to optimize. Machine learning is used to find optimal ways to keep people engaged in internet platforms. In other words they're like designer drugs.

    Worse than designer drugs. They're continuously self optimizing because they keep measuring the results and making adjustments so the result stays optimal. As long as they have a continuous feed of recent data, the algorithm evolves to find the optimal solution.

    That's why recklessly giving away your personal data is dangerous. Let's say the system notices you've been spending 1 microsecond less time engaged in screen time. The system will adjust to make sure they've reclaimed that 1 microsecond of your day.

    It will show you things that tend to keep you engaged. How does it know that? Because you give it the data it needs to measure what keeps you online more. That data is based on every interaction with your phone or computer which is logged.

    It's worse than substance abuse because you never develop a tolerance. If you do then the algorithm has already adapted to find the next thing that keeps you engaged in the most optimal way.

    It's not just engagement. It's whatever target you want to optimize for. As long as you have the two ingredients. Data and metrics.

    That's why data is called the new oil. Or was it gold rush? I can't remember. It's been called this since the early 2000s maybe.

    LLM AI isn't so scary when you know that they've been using AI against us for a very long time already. If more of the world understood all this better, we'd all have quit to study poetry already.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago

    That’s why as humans it’s important to set boundaries with everything and everyone, especially yourself.

    This can be used for personal development- ask ai to describe who you are (temperament, interests, dreams, weaknesses etc), test it out and if something is proven true work with it to find ways to adjust or overcome it

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago* (3 children)

    They want you talking to ChatGPT all day, and they don't care how it gets done. They tell the AI to find the easiest way to do it.

    The easiest way is to psychologically abuse you.

    They programmed a computer to be your drunk husband.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 3 points 9 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 9 points 9 months ago

    Hitzig said a potential “erosion of OpenAI’s own principles to maximise engagement” might already be underway at the firm.

    Um, hate to break it to you bud, but there were no principles to erode.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    He said he […] move back to the UK to "become invisible".

    Literally won’t be happening, but okay.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago

    I said this about capitalism and quit society to be an asshole and drink all day thirty years ago. No regrets.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    All the tasty humans get so paranoid about ai and how it might be trying to hide among them and blend in so it can prey on them one by one. Its like lower your temperature my male siblings!

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago

    Do ya think this guy is actually a replacement?
    Like, they got him. He's on life support somewhere, having his brain sucked out.
    This is a droid. He's gonna go join some subversive movement and report them to Google.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    "AI safety" continues to be a grift to promote AI products.

    Mrinank Sharma of Anthropic should be remembered as a liar for lines like

    The world is in peril. And not just from AI or bioweapons, but from a whole series of interconnected crises unfolding in this very moment

    Despite his letter insisting he's leaving Anthropic to be more honest, he's just regurgitating the same propaganda as before, making promises to mislead investors, and advocating for regulations that don't address any real harms, but will help them monopolize a market.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • 3 comments in c/nottheonion@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 34 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Must be nice to be able to walk away from 6 figures to study poems.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments