Thread

1. chasd00 · 1790595720 · focus · HN ↗

   I’ve never seen CEOs work so hard to make the public aware of how dangerous and out of control their flagship product is. It makes me automatically assume they’re scheming about something else like regulatory capture to protect their market.

   1. cmiles8 · 1790598226 · focus · HN ↗

      Agree it’s crazy, but it’s the least worst thing for them right now when considering they have completely failed to deliver all the promised impacts of AI. Remember when the same AI bros were saying there’d be mass unemployment by now because of these models?

      The growth of these companies is massively impressive as is the tech, but they are an order of magnitude or more off where they need to be to justify anything like the valuations they need to stay alive.

      It’s budget season in the corporate world and from what folks are saying things are not going well for the big labs. Token budgets are being slashed and companies are switching to open weight models. That coupled with the lack of demonstrable business impact at scale is setting the big labs up for a world of hurt. Something they can more easily explain if they have to “slow down” for safety. Unfortunately for them most folks don’t seem to be falling for that trick.

      1. ToucanLoucan · 1790598723 · focus · HN ↗

         > Unfortunately for them most folks don’t seem to be falling for that trick.

         Well everyone alive has been subject to an avalanche of AI-based products. Like even if you understand nothing about the tech, the fact that an LLM can't even manage to check the status of an order without weird issues makes the notion that it's going to go all SKYNET pretty hard to fit in the brain.

         1. esseph · 1790600616 · focus · HN ↗

            > the fact that an LLM can't even manage to check the status of an order without weird issues makes the notion that it's going to go all SKYNET pretty hard to fit in the brain

            I think this actually makes it far more likely something unintended does happen

      2. rusk · 1790599340 · focus · HN ↗

         > they are an order of magnitude or more off where they need to be to justify anything

         Would you let them near your bank account? I’d be cautious about letting it near my photos and it’s much harder to back up a bank account.

         I think the days of this stuff managing serious stuff is at least 5 years off and I don’t believe the economy can keep the current wave of technology afloat for so long.

         The tech is there so likely there will continue to be progress in focused areas much like with the web c 2003 but by the time it comes around again there will be an uphill battle for hearts and minds. The social effects could extend the next AI winter long beyond technology readiness.

         1. automatic6131 · 1790599739 · focus · HN ↗

            The people building, funding, and managing the builders of these tools have completely forgotten (if they ever knew) that most people treat one hundred dollars carefully.

            To the, "oh I'd just setup a card/account with a five figure limit" completely unaware of how much that is to a typical person: even to responsible, educated people who are doing everything "right": working hard, without expensive vices, and planning for the future.

            The "builders" have so much money and no time or attention that it's hard for them to spend it, which is why they keep trying to get AI to buy stuff for them, whereas those of us who live in reality have far more things they want than dollars to buy them with.

            1. HalcyonicStorm · 1790600420 · focus · HN ↗

               I agree with a lot of this statement, but I would argue that this has been the case for a long time. See the giant list of social startups
            2. curiousllama · 1790601072 · focus · HN ↗

               The top 10% of spenders account for 49% of US consumer spending. They're not completely brainless; they're targeting rich people.

               1. sehw · 1790601558 · focus · HN ↗

                  Rich people are mostly retards who had rich parents. What now?
      3. ineedasername · 1790601428 · focus · HN ↗

         they have completely failed to deliver all the promised impacts of AI

         Perhaps that shouldn't be seen as failure when delivering even what they have done in a short period of time has required AI capable of causing these problems? Imagine if they were even more effective with more consistent results?

         "They've failed" in the context of interpreting their actions w. calls for regulation as a purely cynical result of models increased capabilities has a little too much contradiction in it to my thinking. I won't venture a guess on where purely retreats back and some legitimate concern on their part fills in the gap but it's difficult not to see some. And in Anthropic's case it's also a little more consistent with what they've always said- as well as how they've acted at times, which is how they've ended up on the US blacklist of suppliers.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.