Others question AI labs' motives and Byrne's own credibility
3 Sep 14 9:36 AM · 13d ago · 1 article · 3 comments · 2 sources · development 3 of 3
Some commenters argue AI companies are pursuing regulatory capture by writing rules that entrench incumbents, while others question whether Byrne's background fighting tech regulation undermines his argument.
“The AI companies are now advocating for this very arrangement. They will likely get they want, and with that they will gain legal shielding for bad behavior just like Dupont, Monsanto, and so many others.”
BirAdam
Dario Amodei CEO of Anthropic
Eliezer Yudkowsky AI safety advocate
David Sacks Commentator on XPreston Byrne Lawyer and blogger, author of the critique
The whole story articlespostscomments the bright band is this development · numbered dots are the others · click one to jump
Reported in the same hours no headline names this development itself — these 1 claim were published in its stretch
-
first by Preston Byrne, 13d ago
What people said 7 voices · verbatim
-
The mental model here is that AI is a powerful tool whose main purpose is to outcompete others, increase power or provide a defense. This is not the right model!The biggest risk is not that someone discovered a big new weapon, which by the way> No one person, or one company, knows the answer and history is no guideare you kidding me? It's a…
-
I think there is a more nuanced perspective to take on this debate than just profit motive. If they believe that this version of "AI" is actually becoming so dangerous that there is a real risk of it falling into the wrong hands, then it makes sense that the American labs would try to convince the US government to work on a joint "AI…
-
But warnings (e.g. not apocalyptic but damaging or having any effects) have come true, by and large; people warned about the effects of pollution / co2 emissions / global warming over 150 years ago [0], to name a popular example.I don't think there are many truly human created apocalyptic events out there besides global thermonuclear war, and I…
-
I always struggle to understand such an anthropic principle type of reasoning.>If any past apocalyptic prediction had been true, you would not have been around to write this sentence and we would not have been around to read itSo what? How is this [proportion of possible universes in which we can read the failed prediction] logically relevant to…
-
I suspect they have not all been wrong for some people, e.g. native peoples at various times prophesied I’m sure about various technological marvels their more advanced colonizers/enemies/etc.
-
Apocalyptic predictions normally get everyone into gear to prevent the threat. Not a great argument for "let's see what happens if we just sit around this time"
-
A lawyer who has been in the weeds for years dealing with the downstream affects of such regulations? Absolutely!
All 3 developments of Preston Byrne rebuts Dario Amodei's call to "pace" AI… →
Hacker NewsNewswires