Anthropic being a good citizen or pushing ideology?(www.anthropic.com)

2 pointsby morpheos1374 hours ago3 comments

gnabgib4 hours ago
Title: Policy on the AI Exponential
> please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- morpheos1374 hours ago
  Ok i honestly was not aware opinionated titles were not allowed. sorry about. Why doesnt HN autopopulate the title in that case? Given this is a discusion site I lead with my point of view. Obviously the content behind the link is unchanged. Also I will note the original title is misleading according to some points of view since it implies the "ai exponential" is an established fact rather than an article of faith or a marketing narrative.
  - mdp2021an hour ago
    > Why doesnt HN autopopulate the title in that case
    Cost of automation; application of intelligence over exceptions.
    > Given this is a discusion site I lead with my point of view
    Post it in the submission.
platinumrad4 hours ago
The default assumption when evaluating any statement from Anthropic (or OpenAI, or anyone else) should always be that they are either trying to juice their IPO, create the conditions for regulatory capture, or both.
morpheos1374 hours ago
No serious mathematical model that I am aware of has been made as to how LLMs have the potential to grow exponentially in intelligence or has any one show how the application of open source based knowledge (i.e. the training corpus) is a novel "threat" sufficient to require government regulation which conveniently protects incumbents "moats." Instead we got the lesswrong scifi religious treatises. Do we take regulatory advice from scientology too?
- paytonjjones4 hours ago
  The low level foundations of intelligence, both human and machine, are just not well understood in general. It's totally plausible that different architectures could be capable of superintelligence at far fewer parameters than current LLMs. We just don't know.
  All we have to go on is the empirical trajectory, and I can see reasonable arguments either way.