Preston Byrne rebuts Dario Amodei's call to "pace" AI development
A lawyer's blog critique of Anthropic's CEO reframes his safety essay as a bid to build an AI censorship apparatus, drawing HN pushback.
What to know
- Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei's essay calls for pacing AI development to manage extinction-level risks while preserving benefits.
- Lawyer Preston Byrne's rebuttal argues there is no evidence for extreme regulatory responses and warns Amodei's proposal amounts to rebuilding an AI censorship apparatus.
- Hacker News commenters split between challenging the essay's historical-precedent logic and warning that AI labs' push for regulation amounts to regulatory capture that would entrench incumbents.
The dispute Whether the absence of past technological apocalypses is meaningful evidence against future risk, or an unfalsifiable survivorship-bias argument. · positions read across 19 posts and comments
The claim that apocalyptic predictions have always been wrong is a survivorship-bias fallacy that proves nothing.
-
“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 it.”
fwlr · Hacker News ↗
AI companies pushing for regulation are engineering regulatory capture that will entrench incumbents and shield them from liability.
-
“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 · Hacker News ↗
Byrne's own background fighting tech regulators for clients undermines his credibility on this issue.
-
“Is this supposed to make me trust their opinions on tech regulation?”
biophysboy · Hacker News ↗
Dario Amodei CEO of Anthropic
Eliezer Yudkowsky AI safety advocate
David Sacks Commentator on XPreston Byrne Lawyer and blogger, author of the critique
How it unfolded 3 developments, newest first · click a bar or a number to jump articlespostscomments
-
3
Others question AI labs' motives and Byrne's own credibility
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 -
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…
2 more of the top 3 · 7 posts in this stretch
-
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…
-
-
2
Commenters challenge "apocalyptic predictions always wrong" logic
Multiple HN commenters argue Byrne's claim that past apocalyptic predictions about technology have all been wrong is a survivorship-bias fallacy, since a true prediction would have prevented anyone from being around to note it.
“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 it.”
— fwlr -
> History does provide a great deal of guidance, however, about the use and misuse of government power. It tells us that the state is in fact likely the worst possible custodian for the most powerful publication and data analysis technologies.Like, no. The worst custodian is someone like Thiel or Musk or Altman.> In foreign countries, particularly…
2 more of the top 3 · 12 posts in this stretch
-
What's up with this split or democratic vs non-democratic countries? It doesn't even add-up because you can easily make a case that China is a democratic country with a far better system of governance and ability to control this problem than "Western" governments. Highly suggest this quick read on the different types of democracy in our glorious…
-
This isn't a new question: quis custodiet ipsos custodes?In general, the way things work in the USA is that megacorporations write the regulatory frameworks for their own industries. These regulations are typically burdensome enough to be shouldered by the megacorporations while crushing the smaller players in the given market(s). The AI companies…
-
-
1
Byrne's critique reaches Hacker News front page
User timr submits Byrne's essay to Hacker News, where it draws 73 comments debating the essay's reasoning and the motives of AI labs pushing for regulation.
“I believe that AI could cure most major diseases in the next 5–10 years, greatly accelerate economic growth rates, create a world of abundance and empowerment, and usher in a renaissance of democracy and freedom.”
— Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic · source -
background
Preston Byrne rebuts Amodei's essay as a step toward AI censorship — Lawyer Preston Byrne publishes "Who Aligns the Aligners? Brief Legal Thoughts on the 'AI Safety' Fights to Come," arguing there is no evidence for extreme regulatory responses and that the state is a poor custodian of powerful technologies, framing Amodei's proposal as rebuilding a censorship apparatus for AI.
-
background
David Sacks says Anthropic can slow its own R&D unilaterally — David Sacks responds on X that Anthropic is free to slow its own AI research and development at any time, without needing new regulation, a point Byrne cites approvingly.
-
background
Yudkowsky calls for global controls, warns of extinction risk — Eliezer Yudkowsky posts on X the same day calling for "don't die to AI" to become a bipartisan project, which Byrne characterizes as advocating draconian government control over speech and publication.
-
background
Amodei publishes essay urging AI be developed at a "balanced rate" — Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei's essay "We Must Pace The Frontier" argues AI could cure diseases and drive abundance but carries serious risks that require pacing development, invoking geopolitical dilemmas.
What people are saying 10 voices from 1 site · best of 19 · verbatim
- Is a joint US-China AI non-proliferation agreement plausible, and would it function like nuclear arms control?
- Does regulating AI have to focus on 'publication and data analysis technology' itself, or could it target processes, procedures, and people instead?
- Sep 14
-
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"
-
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…
-
A lawyer who has been in the weeds for years dealing with the downstream affects of such regulations? Absolutely!
-
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.
-
Alignment is just a 1984-esque way of saying "censorship".And this censorship isn't a defined list of things not to discuss, but instead a feels-based censorship based on the 'ethics' of for-profit AI companies who have absolutely no issues with massive for-profit piracy.And we are somehow supposed to trust their "ethics"?! Hardly!That's one…
-
I'm not even sure that the author is correct. The industrial revolution was pretty apocalyptic for the people forced to work in dangerous factories for minimal pay.
-
By that logic, literally any ridiculous supposition must be taken seriously, because you can’t prove a negative.
-
> As my regular readers will be aware, I have been engaged, on behalf of my clients, in legal combat with Internet censors around the world, agencies who think that they have both the standing, the competence, and the right to tell American companies what software they can write and run, for the better part of 18 months.Is this supposed to make me…
-
Not sure it needs to be about publications and data analysis technology as such to regulate AI development, for example - could be about processes, procedures, people, etc., no?
-
> Nobody knows the answer and history is no guide, save that apocalyptic predictions about new technologies have, to date, all been wrong.By definition, apocalyptic predictions will always be wrong, until they are right exactly once.Also know as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey_illusionTo date, all apocalyptic predictions about nuclear war and…