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. meowface · 1790595788 · focus · HN ↗

      Or perhaps they've been saying this for literally decades because they earnestly believe it.

      1. chinathrow · 1790595979 · focus · HN ↗

         If they believe it, they can stop. All of them. There's no sign though that any pacing/slowdown or whatever is in place, zero.

         1. perching_aix · 1790596412 · focus · HN ↗

            I don't think that's how the market works. Anti-slavery regulation didn't stop slavery either, just moved it abroad. Same for trash handling regulations, it's just shipped abroad. Falling behind on useful AI capability is obviously not in the interest of anyone, so either all players coordinate, or an arms race towards ??? it is.

            It may very well be self serving what they're saying, but that doesn't mean it isn't simultaneously true.

            1. benrutter · 1790597031 · focus · HN ↗

               > I don't think that's how the market works

               I think you're sort of right, but then I'd have found it very strange / deeply suspicious, if during the time of slavery being legal, advocates of abolitionism were practicing slave-owners.

               If you think AI is going to destroy humanity, it still feels absolutely crazy to leap to "well I might as well be the one to profit from destroying humanity".

               1. perching_aix · 1790598167 · focus · HN ↗

                  Quick search does suggest to me that a number of - even prominent - abolitionists were slave owners, but I'll be honest, the topic is hardly my specialty.

                  As for the other point, crazy, cynical, and even unethical as it may come off, it is hardly inconsistent with how people generally behave when met with hard limits (i.e. making the most of what's available, and approximating the desired state if that is unattainable). This is just a variation on the same.

                  Something could be said about "what if they're mistaken", but if all players are making a mistake, then that makes little practical difference; it may as well be real.

                  1. jquery · 1790606779 · focus · HN ↗

                     A quick search suggests to me that those same abolitionists were born into families that were slave owners, but rejected their upbringing to become abolitionists. It doesn't suggest that a large fraction of practicing abolitionists were contemporary slave owners.

                     1. perching_aix · 1790621792 · focus · HN ↗

                        And then this interacts with the above analogy in whatever manner.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.