First sentence by itself is mundane "regulators are good", which most people agree with, and also libertarians will object to regardless of leader.
Second sentence is obviously sucking up, though is the same level of sucking up found on every stereotypical LinkedIn post.
(Unless they are piping the F1 Mercedes theme song in the announce system at anthropic, in which case maybe you are right)
But I tend to agree, just saying it's a "pretty reasonable statement" and leaving it at that is beyond the pale for anyone who doesn't have an undisclosed stake in the argument.
That is "pretty reasonable" to most people (except the tech-libertarian crowd).
Or maybe he has. I don't know.
I don't really agree with their point here, but there are plenty of people in the AI community whose views are aligned with Anthropic's. That doesn't make them shills.
It's actually important those views are put forward.
A place like LessWrong has the opposite problem - there is no one there who questions the "safety narrative" so the discussion swings more and more towards the extreme end of that spectrum.
My concern is that they won't be pointless in effect. Make no mistake: if Amodei has his way, possession of unvetted model weights will be treated like possession of CSAM is today. And at the same time Amodei calls for that, others are calling for the deployment of technical measures that will make it easier to enforce such laws.
All to the sound of thunderous applause on "Hacker News."
From that paragraph?
Even granting it is sucking up, that is not replacing.
If you think this is OK, I'm not sure what led you to a site called "Hacker News," but fortunately there are plenty of others.
Not sure who you are arguing with really. There seems to be a few logical leaps in between each response. I also didn't say anything like that.