sigmarule
What?
How much of an aversion to objective reality is required to believe this, as you’ve worded it?
First, there is a counterexample to your point, or a class of counterexamples: scenarios where the company believes the harm to mankind could propagate to harm their ability to sell to mankind.
Which is interesting, of course, considering the “AI may destroy humanity” arguments this topic is centered on are prototypical members of this category.
To be fair, one could argue this counterexample is not actually one, but rather a degenerate case where the good of the shareholders and humanity collapse and converge - in either case, though, the implication here is the same.
It could certainly be the case they are playing these concerns up for more effective use as tactics in unrelated corporate strategies. But failing to consider the possibility of genuine concern being behind this behavior is childish.
Extremely bad example for the topic at hand.
We are discussing the possibility of severe adverse societal/world/human impacts from AI, why should open vs closed source/weights, copyright violations, anti-competitive moves, corporate hypocrisy, etc be so heavily weighted in the discussion? Hell, multiple things in OP’s list are quite literally moves a good-faith (wrt the topic at hand, genuine vs non-genuine concern) actor in such a position would do: closed weights means bad actors can’t abliterate, regulatory control, getting blacklisted by Hegseth’s DOW because they LIMITED acceptable use cases…
I’m not pro- or anti-Anthropic at all, but it has started to annoy me how biased and shaky reasoning gets about this topic on here, it feels like people arguing to fit their existing opinions into today’s hubbubery rather than measured analysis of said hubbubery, which is why I come here.
Question: consider the scenario where RSI is reached internally and internal tests struggle to align or control/contain the model; what are the differences in observables vs what we’re observing today?
In any case, the economics of a doomsday device are probably quite unique.., though economic impact as a proxy for intelligence and intelligence as proxy for likelihood-of-annihilating for some bands is probably a fair way to approximate here…
It's like they say: if there is a golfer at a table and 10 other people talking with him, you have 11 golfers.
Even odder: what makes you find it plausible that an understanding of the policies of this period and their effect on the economy were part of the decision-making process of this administration - especially when they have actively voiced opinions that fully explain this action? At some point bending backwards to provide some benefit of the doubt is saying more about the speaker than the topic - I am certainly of the opinion that we are well beyond that rubicon. I cannot fathom the reasoning at this point.
The human brain's reward machinery is not and should not be the arbiter of what a healthy society allows to be advertised and sold. We are sacrificing societal values for economic value. Truth becomes a liability when your competitors can deceive without consequence. Unbridled capitalism undoes itself, with those responsible for the undoing the sole victors. Maybe then those cheering from the sidelines will come to the realization - moot, at that point - that the machiavellian ends were never for us, only the means.
Also, assuming people use Meta/FB/Instagram here, of all places, is certainly an assumption - very poor fodder for a “gotcha”. I find Elon’s political activities and the social beliefs he uses his purchased platform to spread loathsome and daft, and it will take a lot more than “almost as good on benchmarks but cheaper” to let my fiscal tendencies outweigh my moral ones. I’ve held similar beliefs for Zuck for far longer and have cut everything marred by the slime of his tentacles out of my digital life for years, as _many_ here have also done. Accusing someone of uneven application of moral influence over their decisions when you only have information relating to a single decision is poor argumentation.
If you find what Musk spreads palatable, or maintain distance and a lack of awareness, or just don’t care - fine. But don’t confuse the hill you chose with a moral high ground. Any snark you launch from such a position is likely going uphill, and then back down.
This does, in all fairness, also imply that he has a higher upper bound for future possible "importance" / "benefit to humanity" - but in even more fairness, it is entirely irrelevant to my question, which was you believe Dario is >= as evil as Musk. An evil man doing good deeds is still an evil man; swapping "good deeds" with "ambition that enriches himself and may possibly help the rest of us in the future" doesn't make things any better. "Higher likelihood of his ambition ultimately benefiting humanity" does not make one less evil. (Neither does expressing clear disdain for a subset of humanity, thoughtlessly cutting hundreds of millions of dollars in humanitarian aid, cruelty towards your own child, etc).
A parting point: somebody who genuinely wants to save humanity and somebody who genuinely wants to be heralded as a savior of humanity are two very different types of people with very similar outward signals. A savior complex and a messiah complex look the same from the surface.