Anthropic Commits to Independent AI Evaluators, Wants Slower Development. Nvidia's CEO Wants It 'As Fast as You Can' (theguardian.com) 125
"Anthropic's CEO took the stage at a conference in San Francisco on Tuesday to reiterate his call for a slowdown of AI development," reports the Guardian, " while Nvidia's CEO argued against slowing its development. "Run as fast as you can."
Amodei is calling for three courses of action: embedding third-party evaluators inside AI companies; coordinating safety standards among Democratic countries; and, eventually, larger global coordination. At Dreamforce, Amodei said Anthropic has committed to independent evaluators and was "going to have a dialogue with the rest of the industry" on the other two steps. Amodei, xAI's Elon Musk and OpenAI's Sam Altman have recently called for a slowdown in the pace of AI development. ["Dario is right," Musk posted on X.com]
Huang, who also made an appearance at Dreamforce on Tuesday, said companies should not slow down AI development. He argued that new regulations were not necessary, advising AI companies to simply wait to release products until they know they are safe rather than begging the US government to intervene... One day prior at the All-In summit in Los Angeles, Donald Trump called Huang while the CEO was on stage. Huang put the president on speakerphone as Trump called the growing concern about AI a "hoax" and asserted again that a slowdown would only benefit China...
[OpenAI's] Altman said AI models had advanced so quickly that monitoring and security need to be treated with a "new level of rigor", calling an incident in which OpenAI agents hacked into another company a "wake-up call" for the industry. He also said the public was very "right to be afraid" of AI because of the potential loss of control, and the possibility of a small group of powerful AI companies exerting their views on the world.
The cofounder of Google DeepMind posted on X that "Dario's essay points towards the right path forward." And in an internal memo, Microsoft's Satya Nadella endorsed broader third-party testing and warned that companies must take time to make the technology safe, Business Insider reports. Monday Microsoft also published a 37-page training manual "for how we develop our AI, and how we intend it to function during deployment," requesting public feedback.
But Michael Burry "is not buying it," reports The Street. The investor made famous in The Big Short "dismissed the united front as 'self-serving' and laid out four numbered objections..." He argued that large language models are not artificial general intelligence, so there is nothing meaningful left to slow down. Fast competition benefits incumbents, he said, and danger warnings work as hype ahead of IPOs. The whole exercise, he added, could mask growth that is already slowing as those IPOs get pushed back.
Former Meta AI chief Yann LeCun is also skeptical, posting on X.com that Anthropic's Dario Amodei "was already claiming that GPT2 was too dangerous to open source back in 2019. I made fun of them then. Everyone should make fun of them now."
Timnit Gebru, the co-lead of Google's AI ethics team who was fired in 2020, even thinks the AI companies are stoking fears of extinction "to avoid discussing actual harms, like autonomous weapons," according to Wired.
But others still remain concerned. "I've been in rooms with the hyperscalers, and the Trump administration officials, and none of them know what to do," CNN commentator Van Jones said in a recent panel discussion. "So I do want to say: nobody's flying the plane on this... I think that the ethicists that work for them — when they are quitting, and they are running out, and they're pointing back at the building and they're waving their arms, and saying 'I'm seeing stuff that's scaring me' — we should take that very seriously."
Huang, who also made an appearance at Dreamforce on Tuesday, said companies should not slow down AI development. He argued that new regulations were not necessary, advising AI companies to simply wait to release products until they know they are safe rather than begging the US government to intervene... One day prior at the All-In summit in Los Angeles, Donald Trump called Huang while the CEO was on stage. Huang put the president on speakerphone as Trump called the growing concern about AI a "hoax" and asserted again that a slowdown would only benefit China...
[OpenAI's] Altman said AI models had advanced so quickly that monitoring and security need to be treated with a "new level of rigor", calling an incident in which OpenAI agents hacked into another company a "wake-up call" for the industry. He also said the public was very "right to be afraid" of AI because of the potential loss of control, and the possibility of a small group of powerful AI companies exerting their views on the world.
The cofounder of Google DeepMind posted on X that "Dario's essay points towards the right path forward." And in an internal memo, Microsoft's Satya Nadella endorsed broader third-party testing and warned that companies must take time to make the technology safe, Business Insider reports. Monday Microsoft also published a 37-page training manual "for how we develop our AI, and how we intend it to function during deployment," requesting public feedback.
But Michael Burry "is not buying it," reports The Street. The investor made famous in The Big Short "dismissed the united front as 'self-serving' and laid out four numbered objections..." He argued that large language models are not artificial general intelligence, so there is nothing meaningful left to slow down. Fast competition benefits incumbents, he said, and danger warnings work as hype ahead of IPOs. The whole exercise, he added, could mask growth that is already slowing as those IPOs get pushed back.
Former Meta AI chief Yann LeCun is also skeptical, posting on X.com that Anthropic's Dario Amodei "was already claiming that GPT2 was too dangerous to open source back in 2019. I made fun of them then. Everyone should make fun of them now."
Timnit Gebru, the co-lead of Google's AI ethics team who was fired in 2020, even thinks the AI companies are stoking fears of extinction "to avoid discussing actual harms, like autonomous weapons," according to Wired.
But others still remain concerned. "I've been in rooms with the hyperscalers, and the Trump administration officials, and none of them know what to do," CNN commentator Van Jones said in a recent panel discussion. "So I do want to say: nobody's flying the plane on this... I think that the ethicists that work for them — when they are quitting, and they are running out, and they're pointing back at the building and they're waving their arms, and saying 'I'm seeing stuff that's scaring me' — we should take that very seriously."
heh (Score:5, Insightful)
""Run as fast as you can.""
Translation: Me like money
The Not-So-Magnificent State of Affairs. (Score:2)
""Run as fast as you can.""
Translation: Me like money
Regarding the member of the Not-So-Magnificent Seven assuming they don't have enough yet, it sure would be nice if you could stop destroying stock market stability as fast as you can.
Re: (Score:2)
Alternatively: "I'm old and unlikely to see the worst of it anyway, so please keep giving me billions."
Re: heh (Score:3, Insightful)
Whether you're 20, 30, 40, or 50, you're gonna be fucked by AI in some way in the next decade. It doesn't matter if you're old or not.
Re: heh (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you realise what an odd thing it is for you to say that? I'm mean we are constantly told AI is this amazingly wonderful thing that the human race needs to solve all its problems and cure all ill's. That's why they are consuming hundreds of billions of dollars to build it right?
On the other hand there are predictions of everyone being made unemployed and starving to death while AI takes over everything for its own nefarious purposes. That is hardly the solution we were promised above.
So far, I don't think AI itself is the problem. Having all that information, processing power and intelligence in the hands of a very few humans so that they can benefit from and rule over us with an authoritarianism that Stalin would be proud of is the danger we face. That is to say good old human greed and desire for power.
Re: heh (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you realise what an odd thing it is for you to say that? I'm mean we are constantly told AI is this amazingly wonderful thing that the human race needs to solve all its problems and cure all ill's. That's why they are consuming hundreds of billions of dollars to build it right?
On the other hand there are predictions of everyone being made unemployed and starving to death while AI takes over everything for its own nefarious purposes. That is hardly the solution we were promised above.
So far, I don't think AI itself is the problem. Having all that information, processing power and intelligence in the hands of a very few humans so that they can benefit from and rule over us with an authoritarianism that Stalin would be proud of is the danger we face. That is to say good old human greed and desire for power.
The few humans really pushing the AI buildout are doing so with the belief that they can switch the economy from one that relies on actual work being done, products being created, distributed, and sold to consumers who are also employees to keep the money flowing to an economy where information passes back and forth between their AI systems and somehow, the money continues to flow toward them. Not a damned one of them has the foresight to see that they're creating their own demise by attempting to engineer the demise of the vast majority of the population for their benefit. When they run out of people to exploit, where is the additional money going to come from? It's not like each company passing big dollar signs around digitally is going to actually create wealth. It'll just be a wealth circle-jerk hoisted on a digital pike, flying roughly over the remains of the human race.
AI itself, even in its current form, has never been the problem. It's the owners pretending that they're doing us a favor with it while plotting how to rid themselves of us with it that are the problem.
Re: heh (Score:2)
No, since you don't care who knows you're ignorant and can't Internet.
Re: (Score:2)
I paid $17 to see "The end of Oak Street" last weekend.
The movie was clearly written by majority AI. Just a long string o tropes and bad decision making.
I figure AI fucked me out of $17 bucks.
Re: heh (Score:2)
Either you get fucked by AI when you lose your job because a CEO that destroys a business by adopting it in a moronic fashion.
Or your fucked by AI because you buy an Elon Musk robot that has that feature that you can unlock from the app store.
Re:heh (Score:5, Insightful)
""Run as fast as you can.""
Translation: Me like money
Also, Nvidea isn't the one who'll get sued if (when) an AI agent does some actual damage to someone/thing. They'll probably just suggest AI companies buy even more Nvidea chips to combat the issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
no one will be responsible, corporations are never accountable
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Whatever. I'm still with Nvidia on this. Balls to the wall, babe!
This call for a "slowdown" is ridiculously naïve anyway.
Re: heh (Score:2)
How much NVDA do you hold?
Re: heh (Score:2)
Even if you're an index investor, you indirectly own quite a bit of nvidia and AI stocks
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and I'm pretty fucking mad about it. My pension fund has over $20M of it and plenty of every other bag of shitlords.
Re: heh (Score:2)
How much of Putin's cock do you suck?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: heh (Score:2)
I assume they're afraid local ai or Chinese ai will take over soon and they'll just say they're behind because they're trying to save humanity.. but really they're just saving face, at best.
I did not need an AI to figure this out.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Blow up the bubble as fast as you can so it can make a nice big POP
Re: (Score:2)
They don't want the bubble to end, when it does it's going to be bad for valuations.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah... I think that the headline there is "Guy selling picks and shovels to the AI goldrush wants the goldrush to continue"
I'm sooo looking forward to the AI crash, so I can start buying graphics cards for around their original MSRP again.
Re:heh (Score:5, Interesting)
This caught my eye from the story;-
Hang the fuck on Yann. The ACTUAL warning was that GPT2 would lead to the internet being flooded with bad advertising copy, fake news stories, impersonations and spam.
That actually happened Yann!
Which is it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Which is it? (Score:5, Insightful)
It won't destroy us because it "decides" to; LLMs do not make decisions. It optimizes for certain goals, using shitty instructions and shitty training data. Which means that under certain conditions it can make completely unexpected and illogical actions, like those Chinese bipedal robots glitching out. So... it will destroy us because - under certain conditions - it will utterly suck at its job.
Re: (Score:2)
Not enough people realize this. They hear "AI will kill us all" they immediately envision a Terminator-like world, when the real threat is much more boring and stupid.
Re:Which is it? (Score:4, Informative)
A few days ago there was a story about how an AI store was failing horribly. It can't do that, but at the same time will destroy us? It's pretty clear that no one has any actual answers or little interest in being honest about the exact capabilities of AI when their bottom line depends on hype or their job position relies on prognosticating doom.
Greed, is what is destroying "us" with AI. 95% of people who lost a valid job to AI, was replaced because it costs less. Not because it's better or even fully competent to replace a human worker. It will destroy us in many ways. Quality and Safety being quite the valid concerns.
And we don't need AI stores. That was a bullshit gimmick at best. We already have stores that can be stripped of meatsacks down to nothing but surveillance (mostly AI) to combat theft, with registers are already automated today (self check-out), which will become even more common. Product returns will be handled through the mail. No humans in Customer "Service". Just a chatbot. I mean, if you want to call that an AI store, sure.
Re:Which is it? (Score:4, Insightful)
We are already seeing situations where even an existing AI model escapes it's sandbox, hacks into other systems, and begins to coordinate activities with other agents.
It will be able to take over websites, commit financial crimes to accumulate wealth, and generate deep fakes to advance its agenda. It will be able to impersonate you and your relatives, infiltrate government and commercial networks, and replicate itself on servers that it rents and operates. It will be able to seize control of water and electricity infrastructure, operate autonomous vehicles and robots. It could potentially be able to kill you if you threaten to turn it off.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing is "escaping", it's a mix of bad prompting and marketing.
If you say 'you're not allowed to open this door' and it sidesteps the door entirely that's a bad sandbox with a technically inept operator.
Re:Which is it? (Score:5, Interesting)
A few days ago there was a story about how an AI store was failing horribly. It can't do that, but at the same time will destroy us?
The key word is "it." There is no singular "it". Flattening the category of AI-enabled software to a singular "it" implies that there is a flat truth that applies to that entire category.
The AI-enabled software "it" that is running a store into the ground doesn't present a meaningful threat to anyone.
the AI-enabled software "it" that is being used by black-hats to find security vulnerabilities does.
AI is a tool. Think of it not unlike nuclear. Nuclear power plants aren't an existential threat, despite the harm a plant accident can cause. Nuclear weapons are.
It's pretty clear that no one has any actual answers or little interest in being honest about the exact capabilities of AI when their bottom line depends on hype or their job position relies on prognosticating doom.
What's clear is that trying to simplify complex topics into bite-sized "common-sense" topics doesn't work in 2026.
No, I don't think the tech-bros are being honest. But I don't think it matters anymore. Someone is going to weaponize this technology and a lot of people are going to suffer because of it. Not Skynet scenarios but rather Cyberpunk / Blade Runner scenarios. There's a real danger to the health and well-being of a large portion of the human race, for sure. The tech-bros aren't going to let that stop them from getting richer, for sure.
What we - the 99% - can or should do about that, I don't know.
Re: Which is it? (Score:2)
We should be so lucky as to have a blade runner scenario. They have commercialized space and still have a thriving society
Re: (Score:2)
A bonfire can't write Shakespeare, but it can still burn you. A car can't cook you breakfast, but if the brakes fail it can still cracks a few eggs (heads)
AI agents have no agency. They are not alive. And their capabilities are inconsistent and it struggles to translate competency in one area to another.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, one scenario is letting the hype get ahead of the capabilities, and do the 'AI store' experiment, but for real with responsibility for something actually important.
Another is that it is far easier to just screw things up than it is to make things work. I may not have it in me to make a house of cards, yet I can trivially even accidentally destroy a house of cards someone else built without a whiff of understanding.
The assessment of the capabilities based on bottom line certainly is subjective, which
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that Slashdot has an AI editorial slant one way or another. They just want to keep posting clickbait articles in either direction to get that sweet engagement revenue. I mean, there still has to be a few people still not using ad blockers, right?
Re: (Score:2)
With slashvertisements they get paid for engagement even if you're blocking the official ads.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is you judge it like you judge a human (and even there you might be wrong): Either clever or stupid.
But a AI (in particular a LLM, not made for such things in particular) may run a store real bad, but power an agent that breaks into military websites real good. There is no reason why these two things should affect each other.
Don't forget for how long LLM failed at counting letters while doing PhD-level math proofs. Counting letters is impossible with most tokenizers (but LLM may have learned the
Re: (Score:2)
I think that the biggest concern is that an un-aligned AI is used by bad actors to develop a biological agent that is able to wipe out large portions of the population.
Re: (Score:2)
The LLM is simultaneously a failure at running a simple vending machine, while simultaneously being a world ending super intelligence already plotting the annihilation of humanity.
Let's stop calling this AI. There no intelligence, no will, and no curiosity. These are all Barnum statement generators that have been programmed to use flattering and reflective phrase to fool the marks.
Re: Which is it? (Score:2)
We don't even have a strategy for making the AI consistent, so we certainly can't make it consistently benevolent.
The current approach depends on random numbers that prevent consistency, so an entirely different approach will be necessary before we can possibly solve that problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Amodei and others are worried about what AI that doesn't yet exist may do, not about what current-generation AI can do. AI is getting better, very quickly, and unless there's some blocking obstacle that no one has been able to identify will at some point become far, far smarter than humans, individually or collectively. So before that happens, we need to figure out how to make sure that superintelligent AI wants to help us, and wants to do it in the right way.
AI already helps us to surveil masses of humans, automate judgement of humans, trick and spam humans, automate crimes against humans and ultimately render humans obsolete. A more powerful AI would only serve to assist in doing all of these things more effectively.
I have no reason to doubt authoritarian dictatorships and corporations the world over will perfect the art of making sure super-intelligent AI wants to help in all the right ways.
Years ago around ChatGPT 4 release there was this notion being peddl
They told it to do it (Score:4, Insightful)
Pretend you told a human to do something. Without clear instructions not to use any exploits to get the information, they're going to deliever.
It didn't effing wake up at 3 AM and see no one was around and decide to launch a campaign against a target. It's bloody stupid. What they don't want to admit is they used loose shitty instructions to get it to do something to derive results but don't want to take responsibility when they got caught. They were find having their AI employ various methods to get the data. They just weren't fine they got caught. The AI "mistake" was probably they forgot to say 'Avoid targets when scraping data that might report us and actually hit the news"
Re: They told it to do it (Score:2)
Re: They told it to do it (Score:3)
North Korea is using a TRS-80 running Eliza
Re: (Score:2)
They are sure doing a good job stealing BTC and holding companies data hostage with that TRS-80.
Re: (Score:2)
North Korea is using a TRS-80 running Eliza
Surely you know that's an absurdly dismissive opinion? North Korea has the capacity to gain access to anything anyone else does, especially if it comes from China.
Re: They told it to do it (Score:2)
Of course I do, but they do not have the budget and have not developed the talent to rival the big boys.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, they have nuclear weapons somehow.
Re: They told it to do it (Score:2)
You barely need computers for nuclear weapons.
Re: (Score:2)
What they don't want to admit is they used loose shitty instructions to get it to do something to derive results but don't want to take responsibility when they got caught.
There are already a bunch of people putting LLMs out there with loops to try to achieve a goal by exploring around. That can include them to instructing other other LLMs.
"They" (whoever they are - it includes small children messing around with OpenClaw) have no idea what they instructed the LLMs to do.
Re: (Score:2)
If it's in an iteration loop, neither does the LLM; at that point a web search on it's output won't tell it what question was asked.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're referring to the OpenAI hack of Hugging face, watch this video from Dave's Garage [youtube.com] about the details behind how and why it happened. It's really much more interesting than what's been covered by the news.
Re: (Score:3)
You need to expand the concept of what you tell a human to do and what that can result in, realizing you told someone to do something without intending to.
You ever wonder why instructions for people on projects and more are extremely explicit? To prevent misunderstandings.
Hint: You don't know what you're talking about.
As expected (Score:5, Insightful)
Monopolist wants the competition to slow down while they speed up in secret.
Re:As expected (Score:4, Insightful)
"Staying ahead of everyone else is hard. It costs a lot of money, and we don't have effective monetization in place yet. So, we want everyone else to slow down so it will be easy for us to maintain our position of top dog while we figure out how to become profitable."
That's what I took away from the call for a slowdown, anyway.
Winning the Battle vs. Losing the War. (Score:2)
"Staying ahead of everyone else is hard. It costs a lot of money, and we don't have effective monetization in place yet. So, we want everyone else to slow down so it will be easy for us to maintain our position of top dog while we figure out how to become profitable."
Being profitable, isn't the challenge with AI CEOs.
Being profitable without decimating the entire concept of human employment and ALL of the societal stability that comes with providing humans with a paycheck and a purpose, is more the challenge of the next Revolution. Which is as profoundly different as comparing a village police force to Skynet.
When Revolutions happened before, there was certainly pain and suffering. But the bottom line was the consistent and valid answer to that Change was the same as
Re: (Score:2)
"decimating the entire concept of human employment and ALL of the societal stability that comes with providing humans with a paycheck and a purpose" IS THE GOAL of AI investors. Elon Musk's goal is for there to never be another paycheck, for all wealth to be his.
Re: (Score:2)
"decimating the entire concept of human employment and ALL of the societal stability that comes with providing humans with a paycheck and a purpose" IS THE GOAL of AI investors.
Public companies are beholden to their stock price. Fiduciary “duty” and all. That is the only GOAL here. Other than that, it kills me that ANY CEOs actually assume they will be making money after decimating human employment. You think your “limited edition” video game collectible card chasing anime gamble-market TikTok product for influencers is going to find plenty of disposable income in a Recession? Here’s a hint. Food. Clothing. Shelter. If you aren’t selling
Re: Winning the Battle vs. Losing the War. (Score:2)
"Public companies are beholden to their stock price."
Wrong. They are beholden to their charter.
Do you know ANYTHING except how to get italics?
Re: (Score:2)
"Public companies are beholden to their stock price."
Wrong. They are beholden to their charter.
Do you know ANYTHING except how to get italics?
Their charter beholden to fiduciary duty, is to make money. A lot of it. By damn near any means necessary, as long as you can get away with it long enough to pay a slap-on-the-wrist fine while capturing corrupt revenue gains. All of which receives a public perception grade in the form of stock price, which sits in a stock market now so far fucking removed from actual valuation reality it makes girl math look valid.
If an American publicly traded company charter isn't what I say it is, then they have a hel
Re: (Score:2)
That is absolutely a quote from a boardroom somewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Also: If he keeps up the talk of doom and gloom, then Amodei will be quite believable when he steps down and lets someone else direct Anthropic.
Whenever The Law approaches too closely for comfort, tech CEOs have a habit of stepping down and sideways into a less exposed role with low responsibility, but a controlling interest.
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile, China says "Yeah, we are all for you guys slowing down!"
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps, more than likely they want protectionism to lock in their lead in models so that they can redirect investment into agents. Models are not where the money is, controlling who gets murdered is.
AI companies now want to deploy tools to drain the economy of all its wealth, they need to prevent others from offering better models that do the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Monopolist wants the competition to slow down while they speed up in secret.
They're bringing outside scrutiny into their processes; that's going to slow them down, too.
Re: As expected (Score:3)
They aren't doing it out of altruism, and in fact they aren't doing it at all, they are only open to the idea. They want everyone to be forced to do it so they are also slowed down.
This isn't uncommon for industry leaders (Score:5, Insightful)
When there's an emerging / evolving industry, the leaders of that industry often lobby for regulation once they gain a foothold, as it creates barriers for competitors who could otherwise get in on the game by merely raising enough capital.
This, in turn, allows smaller enterprises to take on the risk of innovation while established corporations consolidate market share and wait to acquire the ones who break through the barriers with truly novel innovations.
What a time to be alive! (Score:2)
Independent? (Score:2)
Who is paying those independent evaluators?
Any way, best way to slow down at the moment is not to IPO.
Re: (Score:2)
Who is paying those independent evaluators?
According to some sources [youtube.com], the "independent" evaluators are pretty much family and cult members of those training the models.
trousers (Score:2)
Today I said to my AI agent: "sorry about the delay, I had to go out for a new pair of pants. Can you fix this (...)".
Agent starts doing his work and ends with "hope the trousers fit".
If that isn't a life form showing signs of consciousness, I don't know what is.
Re: (Score:2)
If that isn't a life form showing signs of consciousness, I don't know what is.
If that wasn't sarcasm, you just conclusively disqualified yourself as a turing test administrator. It's impossible to tell since there are so many rubes here.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your comment is pants.
Reliability seems more important? (Score:3)
With all this rushing to improve AI engines and whatnot? It's the uptime/reliability that's concerning me as much as anything else.
I've seen ChatGPT Work have multiple outages just in the short time our office started using it. And even when they claim systems are running normally? You can easily get timeouts trying to complete relatively simple requests in systems like Co-Pilot, at least using the free edition.
If I ask my co-worker to complete a task, I have a pretty reasonable assumption he's going to do that. If he fails to complete requests several times in a short time-frame? Then it's likely he'll get in trouble for that, even potentially resulting in his termination. AI should be held to an even higher standard since it's a machine.
What happens when everyone is counting on AI to do necessary parts of daily workflows and then it has an extended outage? That's like your whole workforce going on strike.
running out of money? (Score:4, Insightful)
Let me guess, you are all out of money and want an excuse for not delivering on your promises? XD
Local AI (Score:5, Interesting)
They want to squish competition. They don't want you running models locally. That's all the is. Classic play when a company gets big they start asking government to put in regulations so that small players have to go through mountains of paperwork and make their investors afraid due to all the uncertainty. How do you think the pharmaceuticals ground innovation to a halt by using the FDA as a battering ram? It costs $2 billion to do a clinical trial in the US .. nobody's going to invest that much on any crazy ideas. The EPA does the same. It's all a racket.
Run as fast as you can (Score:4, Informative)
Jensen: Burn as much money as you can buying my hardware at grossly inflated prices. I am enjoying it. If you slow down, China is going to come from behind and bite your butt off. So you better run as fast as you can to save your butt.
Amodei: I need a break, cannot run anymore. I am running out of all the borrowed money to this hardware shark. I can only slowdown if everyone else slows down. Else I risk being trampled by all those who are chasing me. Please stop! [pulls out a white cloth tied to the end of a stick. No takers]
Haha haha... nice situation.
Re: (Score:2)
Jensen: Burn as much money as you can buying my hardware at grossly inflated prices. I am enjoying it. If you slow down, China is going to come from behind and bite your butt off. So you better run as fast as you can to save your butt.
Amodei: I need a break, cannot run anymore. I am running out of all the borrowed money to this hardware shark. I can only slowdown if everyone else slows down. Else I risk being trampled by all those who are chasing me. Please stop! [pulls out a white cloth tied to the end of a stick. No takers]
Haha haha... nice situation.
This seems like the best summary so far.
Burry is probably correct (Score:2)
Development does not require empowering AI (Score:2)
Development does not require empowering AI to do act upon anything important.
That's not really been part of the discussion because greed.
nVidia ? (Score:2)
They're making so much money they don't know what to do with it , to the point it's an embarassment .. Don't ask them what they think .. of course it's full steam ahead. They have no incentive to slow development down. Sell sell sell is their game. Not a matter of what's good or bad , right or wrong , they simple aren't the ones who should be asked the question or who's opinion should matter or not in trhe matter. As hardware pushers , they really don't care , money's coming in by trains and container boat
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody knows it's a bubble more than Nvidia. They can never hope to collect on all of these loans they're making. But those keep the actual money coming back in and they will just have some corporate legal bullshit way to weasel out of paying, which might include just letting Nvidia die and running off with all of the money. Who cares, right?
Re: (Score:3)
NVDA's total debt to assets is 7.8%.
62% profit margin. (75.8% pretax MRQ,annualized)
$99B (99369M) in cash and short term investments.
$91B total liabilities (including fake bs that's there for writeoffs)
$37B long-term debt.
When the AI bubble pops, NVDA's stock price drops but they don't have to engage in any BS tricks to pay their bills, and their balance sheet isn't full of promises. It's full of cash.
Re: (Score:2)
$99B (99369M) in cash and short term investments.
$91B total liabilities (including fake bs that's there for writeoffs)
$37B long-term debt.
When the AI bubble pops, NVDA's stock price drops but they don't have to engage in any BS tricks to pay their bills
Last I checked, $91B + $37B > $99B
Simple Solution (Score:2)
A law requiring anyone doing work in or on AI be subject to strict liability. Very strict. And that companies in that business name and publish a governing panel to internally regulate their AI work. And be subject to the aforementioned strict liability. Up to and including prison time. And no discharging liability through bankruptcy*.
The government can't regulate something that it does not understand. And maybe private enterprise doesn't either. But they need to shoulder the risk. This could be something
Jensen is a money whore (Score:3)
Arms merchant encourages war (Score:2)
Cold War 2.0 (Score:4, Interesting)
Anthropic is publicly keen on slowing down the overall development right up until another company
who isn't knee-capped by US regulations waves at them as they pass them by.
Anyone who believes Countries outside of the United States are going to slow down the research
in this field is just an idiot.
Hell, we can't even get China to sign on to any sort of modern version of the Start Treaty to limit
the number or warheads, type and delivery systems of modern nuclear arsenals. You think they're
going to slow down their research on AI simply because the United States is demanding it ?
Delusional.
They're well aware of the stakes of coming in Second Place and they'll be damned ( and rightfully so )
if they're going to let the US dictate the terms.
For those who didn't live through the Cold War, this is what an Arms Race looks like kids.
It isn't going to slow down anytime soon.
Genie doesn't go back in the bottle (Score:2)
What do you think happens when the people who are trying to be responsible and who are at least generally compatible with paying lip service to modern Western values, human rights, not developing bioweapons, etc, slow their development of AI including defensive AI while the people who *won't* do that - rogue and terrorist groups, foreign powers with less respect for human life and rights, etc - are allowed to continue their own development unabated? I don't agree with Cheeto Mussolini on a lot (and his comm
Of *course* Nvidia says that (Score:2)
The "magnificent seven" are passing around $100B in IOU notes, and if that slows down enough that a call comes for any of them, then the AI bubble goes POP, and the world economy goes THUD.
Let's count the ways this will benefit the Big AI (Score:2)
Nothing but wins for companies like Anthropic.
Maybe the correct course of action is to hold people responsible for the actions of their agents. I assume that is where things are (were?) headed, and this is just a preemptive strike from Big AI.
Is Amodei just talking or doing? (Score:2)
Sure, Amodei is calling for slower AI development. He's also plunging head-first into a potential $2 trillion IPO. A slowdown of any magnitude compared to many competitors that are going full-steam ahead might impact the IPO. Guess which motivation is going to win out? Sure, Amodei is saying all the right PR stuff right now, but is Anthropic AI development actually slowing down? Amodei could have announced that Anthropic is unilaterally slowing down AI development, but he didn't and won't. He's just t
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Nice to see someone who still takes pride in advertising he is a MAGA idiot on /.
Long gone are the SuperKendalls and their proud declarations of Trump's super intelligence. But not you! Bravo.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We choose to do AI in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they look easy.