Thread

1. gausswho · 1791135823 · focus · HN ↗

   > The market should be choosing not the most capable models, but the partners with the strongest incentives towards safety, and only a community with this knowledge can spread that.

   Read strictly, author is claiming that only ML4Good or equivalent has the knowledge to dictate what models we should be using. I categorically disagree. Or rather, "they're not even wrong", since "AI safety" is not even remotely encapsulated in this piece.

   At the risk of ad hominem, this is an Accenture consultant expanding the definitions for their own ends. Maybe they'll define what "good" is. Someday.

   We've seen this wave before with big A Agile consultants, Microsoft certification hucksters, and different hucksters from before my time.

   It's a verbose (probably AI written?) piece. I gave it the charitable good-faith read. But in the end, I couldn't shake the feeling that even amongst the welcome humanizing of the concepts, this is the same kind of amorphous know-better-than-you self-promotion, opportunistically hitching their own trailer of grift to the buzzword of the day.

   1. logicchains · 1791136943 · focus · HN ↗

      They're just another cult formed around a sci-fi writer, like Scientology. Except at least L. Ron Hubbard had some slightly more original ideas than "robots will be super smart and trick and kill us all".

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.